You could get a phone an foreign country that doesn't allow android, like China, get their OS and possibly use it in North America. the phone wouldn't be trying to send your location data to Google or any other USA company/agency. Of course it would be sending data to China, but they may be blocked by North American government firewalls or such, so that could be an interesting way to express your outrage. In general, if you don't want people to spy on you, say you know, and then say "no". there are a few creative ways. The catch-22 with freedom, is...it is far from free. You have to always be fighting for it, not with guns, but conviction.
Anyone with an Android OS (and probably iOS for that matter). has limited if any true control on their phones. They are basically trojans to collect data from you. One can try to install Cyanogen or LineageOS https://download.lineageos.org...
There is Also PureOS. Because it's not Google default you don't get the Google app #$%, but becuase they are derived from Android, it's not clear whether the tracking functionality is fully under your control or not. But at least the odds are better than pure Google Android, which, frankly, it's not surprise they have little "gems" in data collection they make it impossible for you to turn of..like Microsoft Updates in Windows 8/10. (Anyone using these OS's cannot turn off a lot of the data collection or updates there either)
UEFI isn't that secure anyway. It isn't that hard to break. Personally I think the only reasons for putting it in place was to give Linux a hard time (make i hard for people to move to Linux, thank you M$) while at the same time to give a false sense of security. Given that Intel (and AMD in some processors) have an OS on the CPU that can effective be a full privileged back door, I wouldn't be surprised if UEFI had elements of the same:
Unfortunately (in my opinion as an IT professional) it is scary how much we rely on computer based systems for virtually every job, even manual labor (voice and written communications, status updates, measurement, automation, the list is pretty big.Some schools won't even teach handwriting in favor of "typing" with tablets (?!?). (Why not real computers to give a real education rather than limited, weak, "toy" that is not use in the work place as much as some want to think, because you can't really type well on them). A minor disruption to a few key severs in California or New York, can apparently bring virtually 2/3 of US operations slowing down, or evening to a stop. We probably should be considering how dependent we are on computers and ask ourselves: Should we be?
Linux is better at resisting these things than MS windows. one can argue that Linux is less targeted, but whatever the reason, Linux (there is Apple based on BSD, but Apple has hooks in their products that are not open source). No system is foolproof. and some of these attacks used phishing techniques which someone who is watching can probably spot. But hopefully the AV companies will get better staying ahead of the curve.
But google (like MS and Apple before them) is exerting pressure as the article indicates. I think most of us agree that the potential of conflict of interest of any private company, especially a large corporation, is far to great to be allowing them to set agenda/criteria in our school system at the primary level before children have had a chance to form independent idea.s
It' is truly inappropriate for Google to come in with education agenda, legal and social agenda. That is for teachers and parents to decide. Not corporations. That just leads to all sorts of abuse. Microsoft and Apple have been pushing their products through schools and the results are future people who no nothing but the products pushed in the school. Not what I call an education. Oscar Wilde would have a field day with this. (see his statement about British education in "The Importance of being Earnest").
Yes in detail. You said you knew some of the people. We all probably know somebody somewhere in our in IT. I've been around enough to know that often IT professionals at all levels cannot tell everything about where they work. Usually because of standard NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) but there could be other reasons too. I know enough to not probe too deeply if information is not being relayed consistently, and if I knew more than I should because of a slip of the tongue, I certainly wouldn't post it here.:-) Also, "doing the right thing" can mean different things to different people and as the old saying goes "the path to hell is oft paved with good intentions". Or as Dr. Martin Luther King would say, (paraphrasing a little), "what is worse than the actions of the bad people are the inactions of the good". the folks at Intel may all be "good people" for all I know, and people sometimes work with government with the best of intentions. I can't say if there is intent or not, but I do know when something is hidden like that there is a reason. And if there was a deal that "couldn't be refused" there would also be a "if you tell we imprison you" clause (reports have indicated you can go to jail even for consulting a lawyer in these cases...which should be outright illegal and certainly unconstitutional where you cannot even consult what your rights are, Where the Canary Warrant idea got started). So many possibilities. Being a "good person" doesn't mean people don't necessarily do bad things with good intent. Without the source, we cannot know. What we do know is secrets are being kept, and given the way we know governments around the world work, odds are good they are partially involved. The UK is trying to pass laws formally REQUIRING companies to have built in back doors to their technology officially. Imagine what could be going on unofficially. Possibly with unwilling consent. In China and Russia those laws were being discussed and may have already been passed.
You seem very confident (feels almost defensive), but ask yourself, why is it closed source yet using an open source core? Nothing to with government? How would you know that for sure without the source? It's been well documented that the government has approached virtually everyone, even Torvalds, asking for backdoors. Some said yes, some said now, some were likely given a deal they could not refuse. The first thing anyone tries to do in spying is to create doors people don't know about or rebranding it as something else. The admission of the purposes of the clipper chip was met with a lot of resistance. So the government agencies decided to keep other attempts a secret to reduce resistance. Rebranding is a classing way of hiding something in business. why not government. Unless you know what is in fact in the source it is impossible to say my hypothesis is "egregious" because only top people even know what it does. And why would you put something like "DRM" in something at that low and dangerous level. The DRM is as much as Intel will admit to. (and they may have their hands tied and gagged). Never confuse statements given to the public for media purposes as complete disclosure. If it's as innocent as you say, why hide it? We've had evidence leaked that proved government intentions to hook into all system domestic and foreign through hacks in software and hardware. And a backdoor of this nature is pretty consistent with what we've found from brave people who put their lives on the line to let the public know.
Let's call this what it is: A variation of the "clipper chip" like the government tried to do years ago, except this is more powerful and way worse. It's a backdoor that can potentially operate at a level few not in certain government departments or Intel top level developers can access. Perhaps it's time to give Intel the cold shoulder. Need to confirm if AMD has this backdoor OS in it's processors or not. Wonder how China and Russia respond to this sort of thing? Will we ever see an end of this screwing the end user for corporate and/or government interests?
let's see, you let Amazon do the following:
Record what is in your home
Record when you are home
Unlock your door
And remember folks, if amazon can access it, so can any hacker from ANYWHERE in the world.
The "unbreakable" system is simple an invitation for some smart dude to break it. And if enough people's eggs are in the one basket, then it because a target for HUNDREDS of smart people looking to break it.
No one who values the safety of their home (especially homes with children) would allow this. I consider Amazon a bit irresponsible for even offering this. I guess when anyone gets too big, profit overrides public responsibility.
If someone is going to spy on me or steal from me, I'm at least going to make them come to my home, leave the evidence of the crime and be recorded by MY cameras to be used later in court. Not have POSSIBLE data record and when withheld when it doesn't serve a 3rd parties interests. (Like the body cams for police, how often has the footage get released by police when charges of police excessive force come into play. Hint: virtually never, contrary to public expectations)
Okay, one can can argue that telling means people will hack. but in my experience, the hacking community finds out anyway, and then the public isn't even given a chance to defend themselves. Perhaps MS thought it was cute to leave a backdoor, say, for the NSA, but as long as the customers are paying their salaries they have an ethical obligation to inform the customers so they can take actions to protect themselves. This is why closed source software cannot be trusted and is in fact less secure: people can leave known issues and nobody who truly knows is going to tell, so they can use it for their own purposes. No accountability, means no responsibility, means irresponsible actions. When the world knows as a whole, the world is stronger as a whole.
I'm with you on that, although as another points out, is it we who are becoming the terrorist (Particularly in Pakistan I believe). People have become too busy with their own lives to worry about others, and consequently their own lives are compromised in the process. The "enhancements" the government talks about hasn't made anyone any safer (didn't stop the LA incident or others before it), it just made us less able to have a voice. The only one made safer, is the government status quo. two parties who are basically two sides of the same coin, the same direction, where real change is difficult (I'll never say impossible but they are trying). Because we wanted a little extra safety at the cost (we were told it would cost only a little) of our (in my opinion) essential freedoms, we deserve and currently losing our freedoms and safety.
China, Russia, the UK and now the USA. Our constitution, even the pretence of it, as the US is increasingly not a government for the people or even by the people, but over the people regardless of what it believes. At least Russia and China are straightforward about it. We claim to be difference yet we push ourselves further and further towards the very people we openly condemn. Japan and France are starting to look pretty good right now. Canada is okay, for the moment, but given it's proximity and trying to retain it's "buddy, buddy" status with the USA, it may well go the same route or at least route data to the USA ever so quietly violating not only privacy, but it's own sovereignty. So when is the public going to say "enough". Even Snowden's sacrifice (and others before him) to show us what is going on so we can act, seems to have barely made people aware, and then they go back to "business as usual", save for the few exceptional people, who will be targets for questions the direction of the "status quo". Curse the Bush family for starting it, and curse those after them who kept expanding it. (And that includes Obama I'm sorry to say).
This government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, for as long as it wants, because....if you don't like it, it can take it up with the people who have weapons that can take out your house. an intelligence that can blackmail your pets, and murder squad so good at killing you don't even know you're dead till a few hours after the trigger has been pulled.
It's kind of like the story: Someone gets a loan from a bank for a tank. They by the tank. A friend asks what are you going to do when the bank comes calling for it's money to be paid back. The borrower answers, "I have a tank".
To the best my knowledge, you can be arrested for POSTING content critical of the government (or considered not in "public interests", but as far as I know, you aren't imprisoned for simply reading it (China as so many censor mechanisms in place it probably doesn't matter so much). Does this party even realize what precedent they are setting in proposing this?
Ironically,a system that protects ability to express opinion (not acts necessarily) free also allows people making these opinion Anonymously if they want. In China you are often required to show your read Id to post/use any useful Internet based service. (where everyone who would know everyone else's comment and potentially not only have it censored, but picked up by stoic officers taking one away with no explanation). As Snowden said, "you only have nothing to hide if you have nothing to say". Bold, but correct words.
publish only content we approve of, or we shut you down. That truly sounds like a formula in China and Russia right now: You publish what we tell you or we will fine you. Sounds a lot like: publish what we tell you, or we shut you down. The requests by the EU sound a lot like the regulatory systems in China where you have reps you report to to approve content. People may say it's for safety but "those who give up essential liberties for a little extra security deserve neither liberty nor security". In other words, there is always going to be some people who have an unpopular or sometimes even dangerous opinion, but if we suppress it being express even non-violently, we eliminate free thought, and when you have that, you have tyranny.
After all the talk about "America First". Trump is definitely not making that happen. Whether it's because he doesn't know how to work the political scene, or he doesn't care when it comes to major corporations (even declining ones), it isn't happening. The irony is no matter how many times IBM tries to marginalize their operations, they seems to go further into decline, certainly in comparison to their glory in the sun during the home computer wars back in the 80's. What is likely to happen (as it's happened before) is IBM gets poor code for it's consultancy business, either because of poor communication or poor code from junior cheap developers (subcontracted at least once from India) and they have to resort to nearshoring (say people in Kansas) to fix the poor code they get back. This happened once already. Will be fun to see how this turns out.
Bell, has always been aggressive on it's pricing and it's reputation in the government is not exactly spotless. They had a "internet security service" scam when by default they would give you a disk they told you to install (which I told people there is never a good reason to do with a legit ISP), that would install a remote access service and symantic antivirus, for which you would be billed an extra fee per month be default, whether you installed it or not (I can't remember the amount but I think it was ~$10 CAD). Analysis revealed this "solution" made people's computers LESS security as Bell in essence planed a back door for their technicians to use (their own, not MS's remote assistance). I remember advising people to remove the service, get their own antivirus (which was certainly less than $120/year) and cancel the "plan" that was by default tagged to their account. Several clients had taken my advice but 3 months later was still being charged. Each month out of the 3 when asked why the charge was still there,the support person said it was an "oversight". For a few of these I called Bell myself and told them if they didn't stop these charges and refund from the first cancellation immediately, there would be a class action lawsuit on their hands. As it turned out, the federal government took them to task for that.
Another incident involved their new Fiber internet service. They got a slap on the wrist again by government regulators for false advertising, claiming their fiber internet deal was less than it was. (I never signed up as I never trusted them, obviously).
My first and last experience with Bell as an ISP was when I got my own DSL modem, returned theirs (which they accepted) and they kept billing me an extra $5/month even when they acknowledged they had received their modem back. They said they couldn't cancel it as it was a required part of the deal (although they gave me an address to return the modem as I told them I now had my own). I cancelled their service. 3 days before the cancellation was finalized, I got a call telling me they would drop the fee if I stopped the cancellation. No go there.
So Bell has a bad business for consumer all round and government divisions coming down on their so their credibility is questionable there.
In addition, people are fed up with Bell's exorbitant fees for satellite tv fees.In Canada, Bell is the exclusive content distributor for HBO. They've had a deal for years. (Bell owns several phone company and at least one IPTV service). If you want to get say, "Game of Thrones" in Canada without using a "grey market" (it's not illegal to download restricted intellectual property, only to distribute), you have to pay them $60 basic fee, plus an extra fee to get a channel for extended HBO content including "Game of Thrones". HBO has a very nice Internet only service for $20 USD a month which I tried to sign up for. But it's not allowed in Canada because of Bell's deal. People are pissed and using streams. So bell wants to block that.
MS has this way of seeing how far they can get away with intrusive, user-unfriendly products. From XP (via WGA) to Windows 8 (tiles aka ad server) to Windows 10 (which collects more data than ever before with very limited ability to protect your private). With the MS purchase of Skype (thanks owners for selling customers out), it's no exception. One day we will get wise and tell MS where to stick it and go to linux/macos. Until we do MS will keep doing this because by continuing to use them, especially when we have choices. (even switching from Windows 10 to 7 would send a message, and yes, folks you CAN either buy windows 7 or use the windows 10 pro downgrade rights), we are saying it's okay.
Slashdot Mirror
You could get a phone an foreign country that doesn't allow android, like China, get their OS and possibly use it in North America. the phone wouldn't be trying to send your location data to Google or any other USA company/agency. Of course it would be sending data to China, but they may be blocked by North American government firewalls or such, so that could be an interesting way to express your outrage. In general, if you don't want people to spy on you, say you know, and then say "no". there are a few creative ways. The catch-22 with freedom, is...it is far from free. You have to always be fighting for it, not with guns, but conviction.
Anyone with an Android OS (and probably iOS for that matter). has limited if any true control on their phones. They are basically trojans to collect data from you. One can try to install Cyanogen or LineageOS
https://download.lineageos.org...
There is Also PureOS. Because it's not Google default you don't get the Google app #$%, but becuase they are derived from Android, it's not clear whether the tracking functionality is fully under your control or not. But at least the odds are better than pure Google Android, which, frankly, it's not surprise they have little "gems" in data collection they make it impossible for you to turn of..like Microsoft Updates in Windows 8/10. (Anyone using these OS's cannot turn off a lot of the data collection or updates there either)
UEFI isn't that secure anyway. It isn't that hard to break. Personally I think the only reasons for putting it in place was to give Linux a hard time (make i hard for people to move to Linux, thank you M$) while at the same time to give a false sense of security. Given that Intel (and AMD in some processors) have an OS on the CPU that can effective be a full privileged back door, I wouldn't be surprised if UEFI had elements of the same:
https://threatpost.com/cert-wa...
It would be nice if computer hardware was actually made to fully protect the purchaser rather than other interested parties. (In OS we have Linux)
Unfortunately (in my opinion as an IT professional) it is scary how much we rely on computer based systems for virtually every job, even manual labor (voice and written communications, status updates, measurement, automation, the list is pretty big .Some schools won't even teach handwriting in favor of "typing" with tablets (?!?). (Why not real computers to give a real education rather than limited, weak, "toy" that is not use in the work place as much as some want to think, because you can't really type well on them). A minor disruption to a few key severs in California or New York, can apparently bring virtually 2/3 of US operations slowing down, or evening to a stop. We probably should be considering how dependent we are on computers and ask ourselves: Should we be?
Linux is better at resisting these things than MS windows. one can argue that Linux is less targeted, but whatever the reason, Linux (there is Apple based on BSD, but Apple has hooks in their products that are not open source). No system is foolproof. and some of these attacks used phishing techniques which someone who is watching can probably spot. But hopefully the AV companies will get better staying ahead of the curve.
But google (like MS and Apple before them) is exerting pressure as the article indicates. I think most of us agree that the potential of conflict of interest of any private company, especially a large corporation, is far to great to be allowing them to set agenda/criteria in our school system at the primary level before children have had a chance to form independent idea.s
It' is truly inappropriate for Google to come in with education agenda, legal and social agenda. That is for teachers and parents to decide. Not corporations. That just leads to all sorts of abuse. Microsoft and Apple have been pushing their products through schools and the results are future people who no nothing but the products pushed in the school. Not what I call an education. Oscar Wilde would have a field day with this. (see his statement about British education in "The Importance of being Earnest").
Yes in detail. You said you knew some of the people. We all probably know somebody somewhere in our in IT. I've been around enough to know that often IT professionals at all levels cannot tell everything about where they work. Usually because of standard NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) but there could be other reasons too. I know enough to not probe too deeply if information is not being relayed consistently, and if I knew more than I should because of a slip of the tongue, I certainly wouldn't post it here. :-) Also, "doing the right thing" can mean different things to different people and as the old saying goes "the path to hell is oft paved with good intentions". Or as Dr. Martin Luther King would say, (paraphrasing a little), "what is worse than the actions of the bad people are the inactions of the good". the folks at Intel may all be "good people" for all I know, and people sometimes work with government with the best of intentions. I can't say if there is intent or not, but I do know when something is hidden like that there is a reason. And if there was a deal that "couldn't be refused" there would also be a "if you tell we imprison you" clause (reports have indicated you can go to jail even for consulting a lawyer in these cases...which should be outright illegal and certainly unconstitutional where you cannot even consult what your rights are, Where the Canary Warrant idea got started). So many possibilities. Being a "good person" doesn't mean people don't necessarily do bad things with good intent. Without the source, we cannot know. What we do know is secrets are being kept, and given the way we know governments around the world work, odds are good they are partially involved. The UK is trying to pass laws formally REQUIRING companies to have built in back doors to their technology officially. Imagine what could be going on unofficially. Possibly with unwilling consent. In China and Russia those laws were being discussed and may have already been passed.
You seem very confident (feels almost defensive), but ask yourself, why is it closed source yet using an open source core? Nothing to with government? How would you know that for sure without the source? It's been well documented that the government has approached virtually everyone, even Torvalds, asking for backdoors. Some said yes, some said now, some were likely given a deal they could not refuse. The first thing anyone tries to do in spying is to create doors people don't know about or rebranding it as something else. The admission of the purposes of the clipper chip was met with a lot of resistance. So the government agencies decided to keep other attempts a secret to reduce resistance. Rebranding is a classing way of hiding something in business. why not government. Unless you know what is in fact in the source it is impossible to say my hypothesis is "egregious" because only top people even know what it does. And why would you put something like "DRM" in something at that low and dangerous level. The DRM is as much as Intel will admit to. (and they may have their hands tied and gagged). Never confuse statements given to the public for media purposes as complete disclosure. If it's as innocent as you say, why hide it? We've had evidence leaked that proved government intentions to hook into all system domestic and foreign through hacks in software and hardware. And a backdoor of this nature is pretty consistent with what we've found from brave people who put their lives on the line to let the public know.
And another article last year:
https://www.techrepublic.com/a...
this was reported 4 years ago and I remember reading this article awhile back:
https://www.eteknix.com/expert...
According to the article the newest AMD processors do have this nonsense.*sigh*
Let's call this what it is: A variation of the "clipper chip" like the government tried to do years ago, except this is more powerful and way worse. It's a backdoor that can potentially operate at a level few not in certain government departments or Intel top level developers can access. Perhaps it's time to give Intel the cold shoulder. Need to confirm if AMD has this backdoor OS in it's processors or not. Wonder how China and Russia respond to this sort of thing? Will we ever see an end of this screwing the end user for corporate and/or government interests?
let's see, you let Amazon do the following: Record what is in your home Record when you are home Unlock your door And remember folks, if amazon can access it, so can any hacker from ANYWHERE in the world. The "unbreakable" system is simple an invitation for some smart dude to break it. And if enough people's eggs are in the one basket, then it because a target for HUNDREDS of smart people looking to break it. No one who values the safety of their home (especially homes with children) would allow this. I consider Amazon a bit irresponsible for even offering this. I guess when anyone gets too big, profit overrides public responsibility. If someone is going to spy on me or steal from me, I'm at least going to make them come to my home, leave the evidence of the crime and be recorded by MY cameras to be used later in court. Not have POSSIBLE data record and when withheld when it doesn't serve a 3rd parties interests. (Like the body cams for police, how often has the footage get released by police when charges of police excessive force come into play. Hint: virtually never, contrary to public expectations)
Okay, one can can argue that telling means people will hack. but in my experience, the hacking community finds out anyway, and then the public isn't even given a chance to defend themselves. Perhaps MS thought it was cute to leave a backdoor, say, for the NSA, but as long as the customers are paying their salaries they have an ethical obligation to inform the customers so they can take actions to protect themselves. This is why closed source software cannot be trusted and is in fact less secure: people can leave known issues and nobody who truly knows is going to tell, so they can use it for their own purposes. No accountability, means no responsibility, means irresponsible actions. When the world knows as a whole, the world is stronger as a whole.
I'm with you on that, although as another points out, is it we who are becoming the terrorist (Particularly in Pakistan I believe). People have become too busy with their own lives to worry about others, and consequently their own lives are compromised in the process. The "enhancements" the government talks about hasn't made anyone any safer (didn't stop the LA incident or others before it), it just made us less able to have a voice. The only one made safer, is the government status quo. two parties who are basically two sides of the same coin, the same direction, where real change is difficult (I'll never say impossible but they are trying). Because we wanted a little extra safety at the cost (we were told it would cost only a little) of our (in my opinion) essential freedoms, we deserve and currently losing our freedoms and safety.
China, Russia, the UK and now the USA. Our constitution, even the pretence of it, as the US is increasingly not a government for the people or even by the people, but over the people regardless of what it believes. At least Russia and China are straightforward about it. We claim to be difference yet we push ourselves further and further towards the very people we openly condemn. Japan and France are starting to look pretty good right now. Canada is okay, for the moment, but given it's proximity and trying to retain it's "buddy, buddy" status with the USA, it may well go the same route or at least route data to the USA ever so quietly violating not only privacy, but it's own sovereignty. So when is the public going to say "enough". Even Snowden's sacrifice (and others before him) to show us what is going on so we can act, seems to have barely made people aware, and then they go back to "business as usual", save for the few exceptional people, who will be targets for questions the direction of the "status quo". Curse the Bush family for starting it, and curse those after them who kept expanding it. (And that includes Obama I'm sorry to say).
This government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, for as long as it wants, because....if you don't like it, it can take it up with the people who have weapons that can take out your house. an intelligence that can blackmail your pets, and murder squad so good at killing you don't even know you're dead till a few hours after the trigger has been pulled. It's kind of like the story: Someone gets a loan from a bank for a tank. They by the tank. A friend asks what are you going to do when the bank comes calling for it's money to be paid back. The borrower answers, "I have a tank".
Sad, but true. I feel societies around the world have devolved a bit (and accelerating)
To the best my knowledge, you can be arrested for POSTING content critical of the government (or considered not in "public interests", but as far as I know, you aren't imprisoned for simply reading it (China as so many censor mechanisms in place it probably doesn't matter so much). Does this party even realize what precedent they are setting in proposing this?
Ironically,a system that protects ability to express opinion (not acts necessarily) free also allows people making these opinion Anonymously if they want. In China you are often required to show your read Id to post/use any useful Internet based service. (where everyone who would know everyone else's comment and potentially not only have it censored, but picked up by stoic officers taking one away with no explanation). As Snowden said, "you only have nothing to hide if you have nothing to say". Bold, but correct words.
publish only content we approve of, or we shut you down. That truly sounds like a formula in China and Russia right now: You publish what we tell you or we will fine you. Sounds a lot like: publish what we tell you, or we shut you down. The requests by the EU sound a lot like the regulatory systems in China where you have reps you report to to approve content. People may say it's for safety but "those who give up essential liberties for a little extra security deserve neither liberty nor security". In other words, there is always going to be some people who have an unpopular or sometimes even dangerous opinion, but if we suppress it being express even non-violently, we eliminate free thought, and when you have that, you have tyranny.
After all the talk about "America First". Trump is definitely not making that happen. Whether it's because he doesn't know how to work the political scene, or he doesn't care when it comes to major corporations (even declining ones), it isn't happening. The irony is no matter how many times IBM tries to marginalize their operations, they seems to go further into decline, certainly in comparison to their glory in the sun during the home computer wars back in the 80's. What is likely to happen (as it's happened before) is IBM gets poor code for it's consultancy business, either because of poor communication or poor code from junior cheap developers (subcontracted at least once from India) and they have to resort to nearshoring (say people in Kansas) to fix the poor code they get back. This happened once already. Will be fun to see how this turns out.
Bell, has always been aggressive on it's pricing and it's reputation in the government is not exactly spotless. They had a "internet security service" scam when by default they would give you a disk they told you to install (which I told people there is never a good reason to do with a legit ISP), that would install a remote access service and symantic antivirus, for which you would be billed an extra fee per month be default, whether you installed it or not (I can't remember the amount but I think it was ~$10 CAD). Analysis revealed this "solution" made people's computers LESS security as Bell in essence planed a back door for their technicians to use (their own, not MS's remote assistance). I remember advising people to remove the service, get their own antivirus (which was certainly less than $120/year) and cancel the "plan" that was by default tagged to their account. Several clients had taken my advice but 3 months later was still being charged. Each month out of the 3 when asked why the charge was still there,the support person said it was an "oversight". For a few of these I called Bell myself and told them if they didn't stop these charges and refund from the first cancellation immediately, there would be a class action lawsuit on their hands. As it turned out, the federal government took them to task for that.
Another incident involved their new Fiber internet service. They got a slap on the wrist again by government regulators for false advertising, claiming their fiber internet deal was less than it was. (I never signed up as I never trusted them, obviously).
My first and last experience with Bell as an ISP was when I got my own DSL modem, returned theirs (which they accepted) and they kept billing me an extra $5/month even when they acknowledged they had received their modem back. They said they couldn't cancel it as it was a required part of the deal (although they gave me an address to return the modem as I told them I now had my own). I cancelled their service. 3 days before the cancellation was finalized, I got a call telling me they would drop the fee if I stopped the cancellation. No go there.
So Bell has a bad business for consumer all round and government divisions coming down on their so their credibility is questionable there.
In addition, people are fed up with Bell's exorbitant fees for satellite tv fees.In Canada, Bell is the exclusive content distributor for HBO. They've had a deal for years. (Bell owns several phone company and at least one IPTV service). If you want to get say, "Game of Thrones" in Canada without using a "grey market" (it's not illegal to download restricted intellectual property, only to distribute), you have to pay them $60 basic fee, plus an extra fee to get a channel for extended HBO content including "Game of Thrones". HBO has a very nice Internet only service for $20 USD a month which I tried to sign up for. But it's not allowed in Canada because of Bell's deal. People are pissed and using streams. So bell wants to block that.
MS has this way of seeing how far they can get away with intrusive, user-unfriendly products. From XP (via WGA) to Windows 8 (tiles aka ad server) to Windows 10 (which collects more data than ever before with very limited ability to protect your private). With the MS purchase of Skype (thanks owners for selling customers out), it's no exception. One day we will get wise and tell MS where to stick it and go to linux/macos. Until we do MS will keep doing this because by continuing to use them, especially when we have choices. (even switching from Windows 10 to 7 would send a message, and yes, folks you CAN either buy windows 7 or use the windows 10 pro downgrade rights), we are saying it's okay.