Their entire business model is built on screwing over user privacy, and at the end of the day, they won't be able to do anything other than that. There is no user advocacy, privacy, nor security because of that and the fact that they HAVE to place those things a distant second to profitability.
And that is precisely why Europe has the GDPR, to create an actual financial incentive not to screw over users.
By the way, Europe wouldn't have all this high-speed routing left to their own devices. It's easy for a politician to use tech someone else's many billions developed to satisfy the American market and then turn around and scream capitalism suxxorz!!1!11
But you need an analysis that includes slower tech development due to business-unfriendly environments.
We're not "screaming capitalism suxxorz!!1!11" we simply choose to conduct our business in a different manner, you are the ones screaming bloody communism whenever someone does something that's different from laissez faire captalism.
Not letting the corporations buy your government is not the same thing as business unfriendly, there is a whole bunch of corporations that manage to thrive in Europe.
There is a huge span between letting corporations do whatever they want and being business unfriendly.
Yes there may be more invention going on in the United States than in Europe just like there is more manufacturing going on in China than in the United States, because it is cheaper but that doesn't mean that the research wouldn't be made if somebody closed that opportunity. Manufacturing happened before China and it will happen after China.
Actually the solution isn't all that complicated, limit the ability of the providers to make it expensive in court. A municipality a democratic organization, it represents the citizens of that particular community, make it obviously legal for them to organize something like this without the big corporations being able to sow a legal mine field because they want to gouge the inhabitants.
Personally I think the ideal would be for the municipality to run dark fiber/cable throughout their city and then let any provider rent it at a rate that accommodates maintenance and future expansion, if no provider shows interest then the municipality can run it's own provider.
Where I live the city lays down empty piping, at least to the switching station whenever it does any sort of extensive digging work on water, sewer or power lines so that whenever they want to lay down fiber it's pretty trivial and basically free since the work was done in tandem with other digging that had to be done either way.
It will also be fairly easy to replace the fiber with whatever comes next, just pull the fiber out of the plastic pipe and replace it.
You are correct that some parents accept it but there should be zero tolerance, and the schools should be legally bound to take action and have a plan to detect and deal with bullying. Parents like that should be sent to jail and have their kids taken by social services and sent to a hopefully better home that can teach them acceptable behaviour.
Yes, mandatory(by law) expulsion for the bullies would be a good start, force them to switch schools every year instead.
Give the bullies one chance to stop, bring in their parents and inform them what will happen if their child doesn't stop abusing/harassing others.
If that doesn't put an end to it, expel them.
No amount of sympathy will bring her back, but morning her and punishing her tormentors is giving her exactly what she wanted when she killed herself. Don't encourage this behaviour, it's just a type murder that the courts can't punish.
Punishing the victim is never the solution, preventing and punishing the tormentors is.
Society putting more pressure and more abuse on the victim is not going to work and is a generally horrible solution.
If they don't have a problem with roughing up journalists and making their lives difficult I doubt they have much problem with clapping them in irons when they "endanger national security" by releasing unredacted documents.
Playing hardball with the government usually means loosing and getting thrown into jail for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether it's a 3rd world despot or a western democracy holding the power, the difference is you're unlikely to get executed in the latter and the prisons tends to be somewhat better.
No, many European countries requires you to be physically present on their national soil if you want to present a request for asylum. Embassies etc isn't technically considered national soil(except in the media) since the host country can in theory revoke the embassy.
If a law that would let you force Google to delist you or certain stuff then the same law could than likely be used to force those background check agencies to expunge certain data as well. Yes you would have to know about those background check agencies but if/once you do then you could serve them with the equivalent of a DMCA cease and desist letter.
No, as I see it it's almost a textbook case.
Deception is an act to propagate beliefs/things that are not true or not the whole truth.
Displaying paid for advertisements in a way where it is not readily apparent that they are ads and not regular search results is deceptive, it's comparable to a lie by omission.
Yes, the government is free to set whatever rules it likes, including limitations on what rules and regulations it can make at a later date, but the regulation that it cannot take certain actions is descendant from the government at some point. To be able to regulate what the United States may or may not do there needs to be a United States to regulate and to be able to make laws for a nation you need to have the power of the government.
No one is twisting Google's arme either, they're free to take their business elsewhere if the climate or price of doing business gets too high for their tastes.
A government is free to set whatever rules it wants for doing business within their jurisdiction, you have as a business you can either choose to comply or choose not to do business there, noone is twisting your arm or forcing you to do anything.
There needs to be a separation because showing paid for results as matched search results is deceptive.
Nobody has been held accountable because the person who greenlighted the entire thing and therefore accountable, the foreign affairs minister Anna Lindh was murdered before this event came to light, so the accountable cannot be held accountable unless you know of some way to ressurrect the dead to face charges.
Yes that event is very unfortunate and shameful but to claim that the highly public Julian Assange would face the same risk as two "faceless" unknown Egyptians is absurd. When that event came to light there was a big public outcry, the government could not just quietly shuffle Assange over to the US without anyone knowing or noticing.
Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth.
The UK Supreme Court disagrees with you, in the verdict on extradition they pretty clearly stated that they were of the opinion that The actions Assange stands accused of would constitute a crime in the UK as well.
That Sweden won't guarantee him safe passage (i.e. "We won't extradite you to the USA") you can surmise that extradition to the United States is the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden in the first place. If it wasn't, they'd have long since agreed just to end this stain on their reputation: Already most Europeans see them as a tool of the Americans. Ditto the UK. I mean, most people saw them that way before this, but this has only cemented that image in their minds.
Sweden cannot make that guarantee because extradition here is a judicial process and the government like in most civil states is forbidden from meddling in the affairs of the courts. The govenment can overrule the courts under certain circumstances such as if Assange was risking death or torture if he was extradited.
The only thing the Swedish government could do to prevent a lawful extradition would be to rescind the extradition agreement with the US...
You are correct, and the correct counter to that would have been to go to Sweden and face his day in court and to undermine his accusers.
What Assange is doing is playing right into their hands, he makes himself seem as nothing more than someone trying to avoid being prosecuted for rape.
And trying to avoid being persecuted for rape makes him seem guilty. And people tend to have very little respect for rapists.
Yes he hasn't been convicted yet and ought to be considered innocent until proven otherwise but since when has the media ever cared about that?
Diplomatic mail can only contain stuff for official use, if the UK can prove that Ecuador is abusing that system they can go ahead and open it. The same thing has been done on multiple occasions where the host country has suspected that diplomatic mail was being used to smuggle drugs.
According to article 27 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations only official correspondence of the diplomatic mission is inviolable: Julian Assange can hardly be considered official correspondence of the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Mission to the United Kingdoms and hence his shipment is not inviolable.
No, the UK setting aside the international treaties regarding embassies etc would be a huge deal even if Ecuador is a tiny insignificant bug. Simply because it creates a very dangerous precedent, if the Brittish can do it then so can any dictator/despot as well.
Officially he is a suspect. The prosecutor filed a national warrant for his arrest(they can do that over here), but since then a district court has found that there is reasonable grounds for him to be detained, Assange appealed this verdict twice, first to the Svea Hovrätt(Svea Court of Appeals) which rejected the appeal, he later also appealed the rejection to the Swedish Supreme Court, the Supreme Court as well rejected that appeal.
So yes there was initially some doubt over the validity of the european arrest warrant(because the legal systems work somewhat different, swedish prosecutors have some powers their brittish equivalents doesn't) but that has long since been corrected.
The Swedish government or legal sytem CANNOT guarantee that he won't be extradited prior to receiving a request for extradition because it is largely a judicial matter, the government can overrule the court under some circumstances, such as if there is considered to be a risk that the extradition target risks torture or death if he is extradited.
On the other hand if Assange is handed over to the Swedish authorities both the Swedish authorities and the UK authorities would have to agree to extradite him to the US for that to actually happen because according to the framework for the European arrest warrants you cannot forther extradite somone without the permission of the original extraditing country.
The right of asylum enshrined there relates to persecution on certain protected grounds, such protected grounds may for example be persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinions etc.
Trying to avoid being persecuted for rape is not one of those protected grounds and thus the UK has no duty to accept Assange as having the right of asylum.
I quote from the UNHCR Introductory to the treaty text:
"The Convention does not however apply to all persons who might otherwise
satisfy the definition of a refugee in Article 1. In particular, the Convention
does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering
that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious
non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and prin-
ciples of the United Nations."
Rape is definitely not a political crime and most jurisdictions certainly recognize it as a serious crime. Thus there is plenty of reason to see Assange's pleas for Asylum as invalid.
Assuming that the UK recognizes Elbonia as a state that could possibly be true. If a country doesn't recognize a nation then it doesn't recognize that it has obligations any obligations, and hence there would be no diplomatic immunity.
Sure they can't act against the vehicle itself unless it poses a danger to the public. But if it boards a ferry they will just put a ring of police around the limo and order the ferry to come to a halt a few nautical miles off the coast and then Assange would really be in a shitty situation because instead of staying in an embassy indefinitely he would have to stay in a car indefinitely. Or they could just let the ferry get into international waters and then some "pirates" would conveniently appear.
Same thing if he tries to get on a plane, to get from the diplomatic limo to the diplomatic aircraft he would have to cross Brittish territory so you just place 50 police at the entrances of the aircraft, problem solved.
It is also completely legal to impound a diplomatic vehicle for traffic violations and the likes. So if they suspect Assange is hiding in a limo they'll either have a convenient prior reason to impound(a lot of diplomatic vehicles have at least one traffic ticked issued at some point or another) it or they can probably make sure the vehicle breaks some traffic violation during the transport and then they would have cause to impound it. Then Assange would be sitting in an impound lot surrounded by police until he decides to get out of the limo or risks starving to death in which the police can act to save his life and then arrest him.
A Google data center does not enjoy any extraterritorial status so the police would just waltz in there and drag him out kicking and screaming, case closed.
Embassies are tricky things and could cause a minor crisis(minor because Ecuador is a pretty minor concern for most nations)
I wonder what he thinks will happen after those 5 years, the Swedish statute of limitations for the crime he stands accused of is 10 years so there will still be a warrant for his arrest, so he will be jailed and sent to Sweden, if Sweden finds him innocent of the charges he will be sent back to the UK to face charges for skipping bail and the costs directly related to that presumably(which presumably would include the costs of the surveillance of the Ecuadorian embassy).
So Assange will impose his own 5 year sentence and then some justice system will then impose their prison sentence on him.
Personally I think the chances of him going "missing" on the way to Sweden is nonexistent, this has too high a profile, and the chance of him actually being extradited to the US from Sweden is also pretty much zero. So the Irony is that he's willing to impose a 5 year prison sentence on himself rather than serve the 2 years he would likely be sentenced to if found guilty in a Swedish court. PLus that is still likely to happen if he walks out after holing up in there for 5 years.
Yes I agree that time is his enemy, the Swedes are going to do absolutely nothing, a court has decided that there is sufficient cause for an arrest(and thus an arrest warrant was issued).
So in the eyes of the Swedish legal system until Assange is remanded into Swedish custody nothing more will happen unless statute of limitations runs out on the crime(which in this case is 10 years).
So the next milestone as far as the Swedish legal system is concerned is either when he is brought into custody or when the most severe of the crimes he is accused of is prescribed , and the time for that is 10 years, and only then will the case be brought up again, either to be moved forward or to be closed.
And even if Assange lasts that long in the Ecuadorian embassy1 I'm sure the UK will want to talk to him about jumping bail and the costs that has come as a direct result of that.
So barring that Assange sits in the embassy for another 9 years the most likely way this will end is if either the Ecuadorian embassy decides that they've tired of housing him and that they've taunted somebody enough and decides to kick Assange out or if Assange voluntarily walks out of the embassy.
Really? You weren't among the pissed off masses that hated the fact that key plot points and story beats in Mass Effect 3 that explained everything were behind paywalls?
What key plot points is that? (Are you referring to From Ashes or something else? I had a preordered collectors edition so if it's anything that came bundled with that I obviously missed that it wasn't part of the package)
Most of the pissed off masses hated ME3 because of the pathetic godchild ending(and I still do hate that part, it makes absolutely no sense and breaks established canon and whatnot)
Slashdot Mirror
Their entire business model is built on screwing over user privacy, and at the end of the day, they won't be able to do anything other than that. There is no user advocacy, privacy, nor security because of that and the fact that they HAVE to place those things a distant second to profitability.
And that is precisely why Europe has the GDPR, to create an actual financial incentive not to screw over users.
By the way, Europe wouldn't have all this high-speed routing left to their own devices. It's easy for a politician to use tech someone else's many billions developed to satisfy the American market and then turn around and scream capitalism suxxorz!!1!11
But you need an analysis that includes slower tech development due to business-unfriendly environments.
We're not "screaming capitalism suxxorz!!1!11" we simply choose to conduct our business in a different manner, you are the ones screaming bloody communism whenever someone does something that's different from laissez faire captalism.
Not letting the corporations buy your government is not the same thing as business unfriendly, there is a whole bunch of corporations that manage to thrive in Europe. There is a huge span between letting corporations do whatever they want and being business unfriendly.
Yes there may be more invention going on in the United States than in Europe just like there is more manufacturing going on in China than in the United States, because it is cheaper but that doesn't mean that the research wouldn't be made if somebody closed that opportunity. Manufacturing happened before China and it will happen after China.
Actually the solution isn't all that complicated, limit the ability of the providers to make it expensive in court. A municipality a democratic organization, it represents the citizens of that particular community, make it obviously legal for them to organize something like this without the big corporations being able to sow a legal mine field because they want to gouge the inhabitants.
Personally I think the ideal would be for the municipality to run dark fiber/cable throughout their city and then let any provider rent it at a rate that accommodates maintenance and future expansion, if no provider shows interest then the municipality can run it's own provider.
Where I live the city lays down empty piping, at least to the switching station whenever it does any sort of extensive digging work on water, sewer or power lines so that whenever they want to lay down fiber it's pretty trivial and basically free since the work was done in tandem with other digging that had to be done either way. It will also be fairly easy to replace the fiber with whatever comes next, just pull the fiber out of the plastic pipe and replace it.
You are correct that some parents accept it but there should be zero tolerance, and the schools should be legally bound to take action and have a plan to detect and deal with bullying. Parents like that should be sent to jail and have their kids taken by social services and sent to a hopefully better home that can teach them acceptable behaviour.
Yes, mandatory(by law) expulsion for the bullies would be a good start, force them to switch schools every year instead.
Give the bullies one chance to stop, bring in their parents and inform them what will happen if their child doesn't stop abusing/harassing others. If that doesn't put an end to it, expel them.
No amount of sympathy will bring her back, but morning her and punishing her tormentors is giving her exactly what she wanted when she killed herself. Don't encourage this behaviour, it's just a type murder that the courts can't punish.
Punishing the victim is never the solution, preventing and punishing the tormentors is.
Society putting more pressure and more abuse on the victim is not going to work and is a generally horrible solution.
If they don't have a problem with roughing up journalists and making their lives difficult I doubt they have much problem with clapping them in irons when they "endanger national security" by releasing unredacted documents.
Playing hardball with the government usually means loosing and getting thrown into jail for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether it's a 3rd world despot or a western democracy holding the power, the difference is you're unlikely to get executed in the latter and the prisons tends to be somewhat better.
No, many European countries requires you to be physically present on their national soil if you want to present a request for asylum. Embassies etc isn't technically considered national soil(except in the media) since the host country can in theory revoke the embassy.
If a law that would let you force Google to delist you or certain stuff then the same law could than likely be used to force those background check agencies to expunge certain data as well. Yes you would have to know about those background check agencies but if/once you do then you could serve them with the equivalent of a DMCA cease and desist letter.
No, as I see it it's almost a textbook case.
Deception is an act to propagate beliefs/things that are not true or not the whole truth.
Displaying paid for advertisements in a way where it is not readily apparent that they are ads and not regular search results is deceptive, it's comparable to a lie by omission. Yes, the government is free to set whatever rules it likes, including limitations on what rules and regulations it can make at a later date, but the regulation that it cannot take certain actions is descendant from the government at some point. To be able to regulate what the United States may or may not do there needs to be a United States to regulate and to be able to make laws for a nation you need to have the power of the government.
No one is twisting Google's arme either, they're free to take their business elsewhere if the climate or price of doing business gets too high for their tastes.
A government is free to set whatever rules it wants for doing business within their jurisdiction, you have as a business you can either choose to comply or choose not to do business there, noone is twisting your arm or forcing you to do anything.
There needs to be a separation because showing paid for results as matched search results is deceptive.
In Sweden the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years.
Nobody has been held accountable because the person who greenlighted the entire thing and therefore accountable, the foreign affairs minister Anna Lindh was murdered before this event came to light, so the accountable cannot be held accountable unless you know of some way to ressurrect the dead to face charges.
Yes that event is very unfortunate and shameful but to claim that the highly public Julian Assange would face the same risk as two "faceless" unknown Egyptians is absurd. When that event came to light there was a big public outcry, the government could not just quietly shuffle Assange over to the US without anyone knowing or noticing.
Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth.
The UK Supreme Court disagrees with you, in the verdict on extradition they pretty clearly stated that they were of the opinion that The actions Assange stands accused of would constitute a crime in the UK as well.
That Sweden won't guarantee him safe passage (i.e. "We won't extradite you to the USA") you can surmise that extradition to the United States is the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden in the first place. If it wasn't, they'd have long since agreed just to end this stain on their reputation: Already most Europeans see them as a tool of the Americans. Ditto the UK. I mean, most people saw them that way before this, but this has only cemented that image in their minds.
Sweden cannot make that guarantee because extradition here is a judicial process and the government like in most civil states is forbidden from meddling in the affairs of the courts. The govenment can overrule the courts under certain circumstances such as if Assange was risking death or torture if he was extradited.
The only thing the Swedish government could do to prevent a lawful extradition would be to rescind the extradition agreement with the US...
You are correct, and the correct counter to that would have been to go to Sweden and face his day in court and to undermine his accusers. What Assange is doing is playing right into their hands, he makes himself seem as nothing more than someone trying to avoid being prosecuted for rape.
And trying to avoid being persecuted for rape makes him seem guilty. And people tend to have very little respect for rapists.
Yes he hasn't been convicted yet and ought to be considered innocent until proven otherwise but since when has the media ever cared about that?
Diplomatic mail can only contain stuff for official use, if the UK can prove that Ecuador is abusing that system they can go ahead and open it. The same thing has been done on multiple occasions where the host country has suspected that diplomatic mail was being used to smuggle drugs.
According to article 27 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations only official correspondence of the diplomatic mission is inviolable: Julian Assange can hardly be considered official correspondence of the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Mission to the United Kingdoms and hence his shipment is not inviolable.
No, the UK setting aside the international treaties regarding embassies etc would be a huge deal even if Ecuador is a tiny insignificant bug. Simply because it creates a very dangerous precedent, if the Brittish can do it then so can any dictator/despot as well.
Officially he is a suspect. The prosecutor filed a national warrant for his arrest(they can do that over here), but since then a district court has found that there is reasonable grounds for him to be detained, Assange appealed this verdict twice, first to the Svea Hovrätt(Svea Court of Appeals) which rejected the appeal, he later also appealed the rejection to the Swedish Supreme Court, the Supreme Court as well rejected that appeal.
So yes there was initially some doubt over the validity of the european arrest warrant(because the legal systems work somewhat different, swedish prosecutors have some powers their brittish equivalents doesn't) but that has long since been corrected.
The Swedish government or legal sytem CANNOT guarantee that he won't be extradited prior to receiving a request for extradition because it is largely a judicial matter, the government can overrule the court under some circumstances, such as if there is considered to be a risk that the extradition target risks torture or death if he is extradited.
On the other hand if Assange is handed over to the Swedish authorities both the Swedish authorities and the UK authorities would have to agree to extradite him to the US for that to actually happen because according to the framework for the European arrest warrants you cannot forther extradite somone without the permission of the original extraditing country.
The right of asylum enshrined there relates to persecution on certain protected grounds, such protected grounds may for example be persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinions etc.
Trying to avoid being persecuted for rape is not one of those protected grounds and thus the UK has no duty to accept Assange as having the right of asylum. I quote from the UNHCR Introductory to the treaty text:
"The Convention does not however apply to all persons who might otherwise satisfy the definition of a refugee in Article 1. In particular, the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and prin- ciples of the United Nations."
Rape is definitely not a political crime and most jurisdictions certainly recognize it as a serious crime. Thus there is plenty of reason to see Assange's pleas for Asylum as invalid.
Assuming that the UK recognizes Elbonia as a state that could possibly be true. If a country doesn't recognize a nation then it doesn't recognize that it has obligations any obligations, and hence there would be no diplomatic immunity.
Sure they can't act against the vehicle itself unless it poses a danger to the public. But if it boards a ferry they will just put a ring of police around the limo and order the ferry to come to a halt a few nautical miles off the coast and then Assange would really be in a shitty situation because instead of staying in an embassy indefinitely he would have to stay in a car indefinitely. Or they could just let the ferry get into international waters and then some "pirates" would conveniently appear.
Same thing if he tries to get on a plane, to get from the diplomatic limo to the diplomatic aircraft he would have to cross Brittish territory so you just place 50 police at the entrances of the aircraft, problem solved.
It is also completely legal to impound a diplomatic vehicle for traffic violations and the likes. So if they suspect Assange is hiding in a limo they'll either have a convenient prior reason to impound(a lot of diplomatic vehicles have at least one traffic ticked issued at some point or another) it or they can probably make sure the vehicle breaks some traffic violation during the transport and then they would have cause to impound it. Then Assange would be sitting in an impound lot surrounded by police until he decides to get out of the limo or risks starving to death in which the police can act to save his life and then arrest him.
A Google data center does not enjoy any extraterritorial status so the police would just waltz in there and drag him out kicking and screaming, case closed. Embassies are tricky things and could cause a minor crisis(minor because Ecuador is a pretty minor concern for most nations)
I wonder what he thinks will happen after those 5 years, the Swedish statute of limitations for the crime he stands accused of is 10 years so there will still be a warrant for his arrest, so he will be jailed and sent to Sweden, if Sweden finds him innocent of the charges he will be sent back to the UK to face charges for skipping bail and the costs directly related to that presumably(which presumably would include the costs of the surveillance of the Ecuadorian embassy).
So Assange will impose his own 5 year sentence and then some justice system will then impose their prison sentence on him.
Personally I think the chances of him going "missing" on the way to Sweden is nonexistent, this has too high a profile, and the chance of him actually being extradited to the US from Sweden is also pretty much zero. So the Irony is that he's willing to impose a 5 year prison sentence on himself rather than serve the 2 years he would likely be sentenced to if found guilty in a Swedish court. PLus that is still likely to happen if he walks out after holing up in there for 5 years.
Yes I agree that time is his enemy, the Swedes are going to do absolutely nothing, a court has decided that there is sufficient cause for an arrest(and thus an arrest warrant was issued).
So in the eyes of the Swedish legal system until Assange is remanded into Swedish custody nothing more will happen unless statute of limitations runs out on the crime(which in this case is 10 years).
So the next milestone as far as the Swedish legal system is concerned is either when he is brought into custody or when the most severe of the crimes he is accused of is prescribed , and the time for that is 10 years, and only then will the case be brought up again, either to be moved forward or to be closed. And even if Assange lasts that long in the Ecuadorian embassy1 I'm sure the UK will want to talk to him about jumping bail and the costs that has come as a direct result of that.
So barring that Assange sits in the embassy for another 9 years the most likely way this will end is if either the Ecuadorian embassy decides that they've tired of housing him and that they've taunted somebody enough and decides to kick Assange out or if Assange voluntarily walks out of the embassy.
Really? You weren't among the pissed off masses that hated the fact that key plot points and story beats in Mass Effect 3 that explained everything were behind paywalls? What key plot points is that? (Are you referring to From Ashes or something else? I had a preordered collectors edition so if it's anything that came bundled with that I obviously missed that it wasn't part of the package)
Most of the pissed off masses hated ME3 because of the pathetic godchild ending(and I still do hate that part, it makes absolutely no sense and breaks established canon and whatnot)