Seriously, the more that world governments try to push these proposals, the more demand there will be for robust anonymity online. Whatever data they collect will eventually be used against the citizens, and when citizens start seeing their friends in legal trouble, they will start looking into ways of preventing the same from happening to them. It will become a cat and mouse game, and if the game is allowed to continue long enough, we may see things turn violent (e.g. what happens in countries like China).
Or perhaps they are just not aware. I still get confused looks from people when I mention to them just what sort of control Apple has over the iPhone/iPad. If I could say with certainty that most people were informed but did not care, I would agree with you, but from where I sit it looks like most people are not even aware.
You would be surprised; in any case, that is the reason I included "literate" in the sentence, and I would like to think that a lack of technical literacy is the reason most people have not jailbroken their iPhones yet (assuming, of course, that those people even see a reason to do such a thing).
That path is also totally open as Apple cannot block (and does not try to block) whatever you visit via the web.
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but there is no technical reason why Apple could not block websites on the iPhone/iPad. They have control of the devices, and they could easily push an update that includes a blacklist. They could even insert a timer into the code that actually checks the blacklist, so that the majority of people receive the update before the media stories start surfacing about blocked websites.
Thankfully, Apple does not do that, but I doubt that their reason has anything to do with respecting iPhone owners -- more likely, their marketing team is just not able to come up with a way to make such a move seem like a good thing.
I am at a university, and the computer science department has 5 IT staffers who simply report to the central IT office for the entire campus. Most of the large departments in science and engineering have one or two IT staffers who serve a similar role, but since CS has somewhat heavier computing needs, we are assigned extra people. Basically, the department's IT staff serve as points of contact: they do what is in their power when they can, or if they cannot, they forward the request up to the appropriate person. For example, when I received my new workstation, a university-wide asset number had to be assigned to it, and the CS department firewall had to be configured to allow SSH traffic to the machine; the IT staff forwarded the asset number request to the central office, and took care of the DNS entry themselves.
Censorship does not require a brutal, repressive government. Look over the definition of the word again, and show me where it says anything about violence.
True, a jailbroken iPhone/iPad can run applications that are not approved by Apple. However, jailbreaking is only a partial solution; the warranty is voided, in the past Apple has sabotaged jailbroken iPhones, and there are a lot of people who are not technically competent/literate enough to jailbreak their phone. As I noted elsewhere, claiming that it is not a problem because someone could "always" hack through the restrictions is akin to claiming that censorship in China is not a problem because someone could "always" just use proxy servers.
This sounds like a classic case of "models" versus "reality." In economic theory, everyone does their research and makes a well informed decision on what to purchase, thus forming the basis for modeling economies. In reality, though, most people do not have enough time available to thoroughly research every product they buy, nor do they even know where to look to do that research.
Would you blame someone for failing to read all the available research on a particular medicine before taking it, instead of just relying on what their doctors tell them (or perhaps reading a few reports from a major news source)? Why, then, would you blame a not-technically-literate person for failing to read every single report and opinion about the iPhone before purchasing one, instead of just relying on a couple of reviews they read from major media sources?
How is it hysterical redefining of a term, exactly? So we are clear, here is the definition of "censorship," Wiktionary:
"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
Apple uses its power over iPhones and iPads to control freedom of expression (e.g. by preventing comics that happen to contain nudity from being installed). No, it is not absolute control, but it certainly is control.
So someone who already has an iPhone should be forced to spend even more money on another phone? What a great scam Apple is running -- take hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting customers, who will then be forced to go out and buy your competitors' products anyway!
Except that people are now forced to jailbreak the iPhone/iPad, not only voiding their warranties, but also risking another case of Apple sabotaging their appliance. Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
Why should we feel good about Apple's policies? They arbitrarily censor content on the iPhone/iPad, and they only back down when it looks like more than a handful of people might be angry over it. I do not think Apple would have changed its decision on Ulysses had the story not made the New York Times; most of the applications that Apple rejects are never reconsidered, even in cases that are clearly censorship.
Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way? Frankly, what other way is there to describe Apple's behavior: they actively prevent certain material from being published.
"So you feel that a USA court should refuse to hear a case brought by a USA plaintiff just because the defendent is foreign?"
No, but when the defendant is foreign and the defendant's actions took place on foreign soil, it seems a bit silly to try the defendant in a US court of law. Why not try the defendant in the jurisdiction where the defendant's actions actually took place, under the laws of that jurisdiction?
You might have a friend who does, and that could wind up leading to location information about you too: your friend announces that they are hanging out with you, and the location data announces where your friend is doing that.
Nobody went on a rampage. From TFA, it was not even clear to me that a real threat had been issued, as opposed to some kid who vented in an unusual way. I also noticed that the type of gun is not mentioned -- maybe it was a handgun, maybe it was an old smoothbore quail hunting gun. All that we can see in TFA is 8 words from the note and some kind of vague mention of bullies.
Maybe the kid was really a threat, but from what I am reading here, it is pretty hard to say. All I see is that the FBI was monitoring Facebook for certain combinations of words that are assumed to be a threat, and that because such a combination happened to be found along with a photo of a gun, a teenager was arrested. Maybe I have seen to many cases where American police officers exaggerate threats and demonize teenagers, and maybe such things do not happen in the UK, but I am skeptical.
I already have a Linux powered ARM system that pretty much serves the same purpose (small form factor, low power, HDMI output) -- admittedly less processing power, but frankly, for rendering video and serving as a cheap home entertainment computer, it is fine.
I do not know where you grew up, but when I was in elementary school, we had maps that showed countries which had not existed in over a decade. We had math textbooks that were falling apart. The teachers had to spend money out of their own pockets on classroom supplies, despite the fact that their salaries were the lowest in the entire region. This was in New York City, one of the most heavily populated areas in the entire country, and my school was considered to be OK by comparison -- there were schools in other parts of the city where teachers were hired despite being unable to write a complete sentence, and some schools had begun to use bathrooms as classrooms because of the severe overcrowding.
The results were predictable -- a lot of students in New York City enter high school who read and write at the same level as a first grade student, and who cannot even handle basic arithmetic. Science education is difficult when the students cannot read and understand a textbook or do the necessary math.
It is certainly the case that money is not the only problem; there are a lot of policy issues as well. For example, the controversial "social promotion" policy, which did not allow students to be held back even if they were not performing at or near grade level (this is how high school students who read and write at first grade level come to be: they had to be admitted). The funding problems wind up magnifying the policy problems and the result is an embarrassingly bad education system.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, the more that world governments try to push these proposals, the more demand there will be for robust anonymity online. Whatever data they collect will eventually be used against the citizens, and when citizens start seeing their friends in legal trouble, they will start looking into ways of preventing the same from happening to them. It will become a cat and mouse game, and if the game is allowed to continue long enough, we may see things turn violent (e.g. what happens in countries like China).
Or perhaps they are just not aware. I still get confused looks from people when I mention to them just what sort of control Apple has over the iPhone/iPad. If I could say with certainty that most people were informed but did not care, I would agree with you, but from where I sit it looks like most people are not even aware.
You would be surprised; in any case, that is the reason I included "literate" in the sentence, and I would like to think that a lack of technical literacy is the reason most people have not jailbroken their iPhones yet (assuming, of course, that those people even see a reason to do such a thing).
That path is also totally open as Apple cannot block (and does not try to block) whatever you visit via the web.
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but there is no technical reason why Apple could not block websites on the iPhone/iPad. They have control of the devices, and they could easily push an update that includes a blacklist. They could even insert a timer into the code that actually checks the blacklist, so that the majority of people receive the update before the media stories start surfacing about blocked websites.
Thankfully, Apple does not do that, but I doubt that their reason has anything to do with respecting iPhone owners -- more likely, their marketing team is just not able to come up with a way to make such a move seem like a good thing.
That should read "firewall modification."
I am at a university, and the computer science department has 5 IT staffers who simply report to the central IT office for the entire campus. Most of the large departments in science and engineering have one or two IT staffers who serve a similar role, but since CS has somewhat heavier computing needs, we are assigned extra people. Basically, the department's IT staff serve as points of contact: they do what is in their power when they can, or if they cannot, they forward the request up to the appropriate person. For example, when I received my new workstation, a university-wide asset number had to be assigned to it, and the CS department firewall had to be configured to allow SSH traffic to the machine; the IT staff forwarded the asset number request to the central office, and took care of the DNS entry themselves.
Damn it, why does Apple never ship mobile devices with features I want! I want a damned punched card reader on my iPad!
Censorship does not require a brutal, repressive government. Look over the definition of the word again, and show me where it says anything about violence.
True, a jailbroken iPhone/iPad can run applications that are not approved by Apple. However, jailbreaking is only a partial solution; the warranty is voided, in the past Apple has sabotaged jailbroken iPhones, and there are a lot of people who are not technically competent/literate enough to jailbreak their phone. As I noted elsewhere, claiming that it is not a problem because someone could "always" hack through the restrictions is akin to claiming that censorship in China is not a problem because someone could "always" just use proxy servers.
What about all those other people who are not on Slashdot? I think they are known as "the majority."
This sounds like a classic case of "models" versus "reality." In economic theory, everyone does their research and makes a well informed decision on what to purchase, thus forming the basis for modeling economies. In reality, though, most people do not have enough time available to thoroughly research every product they buy, nor do they even know where to look to do that research.
Would you blame someone for failing to read all the available research on a particular medicine before taking it, instead of just relying on what their doctors tell them (or perhaps reading a few reports from a major news source)? Why, then, would you blame a not-technically-literate person for failing to read every single report and opinion about the iPhone before purchasing one, instead of just relying on a couple of reviews they read from major media sources?
"Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it."
When did applications start coming in paperback form?
How is it hysterical redefining of a term, exactly? So we are clear, here is the definition of "censorship," Wiktionary:
"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
Apple uses its power over iPhones and iPads to control freedom of expression (e.g. by preventing comics that happen to contain nudity from being installed). No, it is not absolute control, but it certainly is control.
So someone who already has an iPhone should be forced to spend even more money on another phone? What a great scam Apple is running -- take hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting customers, who will then be forced to go out and buy your competitors' products anyway!
Except that people are now forced to jailbreak the iPhone/iPad, not only voiding their warranties, but also risking another case of Apple sabotaging their appliance. Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
"And so instead I drive another block to the other grocer to get my cookies-n-cream."
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it.
Why should we feel good about Apple's policies? They arbitrarily censor content on the iPhone/iPad, and they only back down when it looks like more than a handful of people might be angry over it. I do not think Apple would have changed its decision on Ulysses had the story not made the New York Times; most of the applications that Apple rejects are never reconsidered, even in cases that are clearly censorship.
"No, it's not really censorship"
Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way? Frankly, what other way is there to describe Apple's behavior: they actively prevent certain material from being published.
"So you feel that a USA court should refuse to hear a case brought by a USA plaintiff just because the defendent is foreign?"
No, but when the defendant is foreign and the defendant's actions took place on foreign soil, it seems a bit silly to try the defendant in a US court of law. Why not try the defendant in the jurisdiction where the defendant's actions actually took place, under the laws of that jurisdiction?
You might have a friend who does, and that could wind up leading to location information about you too: your friend announces that they are hanging out with you, and the location data announces where your friend is doing that.
"What if some kid had gone on a rampage"
Nobody went on a rampage. From TFA, it was not even clear to me that a real threat had been issued, as opposed to some kid who vented in an unusual way. I also noticed that the type of gun is not mentioned -- maybe it was a handgun, maybe it was an old smoothbore quail hunting gun. All that we can see in TFA is 8 words from the note and some kind of vague mention of bullies.
Maybe the kid was really a threat, but from what I am reading here, it is pretty hard to say. All I see is that the FBI was monitoring Facebook for certain combinations of words that are assumed to be a threat, and that because such a combination happened to be found along with a photo of a gun, a teenager was arrested. Maybe I have seen to many cases where American police officers exaggerate threats and demonize teenagers, and maybe such things do not happen in the UK, but I am skeptical.
I already have a Linux powered ARM system that pretty much serves the same purpose (small form factor, low power, HDMI output) -- admittedly less processing power, but frankly, for rendering video and serving as a cheap home entertainment computer, it is fine.
Lots of people seem to be fed up with Jobs "walled garden"
Lots of people on Slashdot, but that is just a fraction of the population.
"Are our primary schools bad?"
I do not know where you grew up, but when I was in elementary school, we had maps that showed countries which had not existed in over a decade. We had math textbooks that were falling apart. The teachers had to spend money out of their own pockets on classroom supplies, despite the fact that their salaries were the lowest in the entire region. This was in New York City, one of the most heavily populated areas in the entire country, and my school was considered to be OK by comparison -- there were schools in other parts of the city where teachers were hired despite being unable to write a complete sentence, and some schools had begun to use bathrooms as classrooms because of the severe overcrowding.
The results were predictable -- a lot of students in New York City enter high school who read and write at the same level as a first grade student, and who cannot even handle basic arithmetic. Science education is difficult when the students cannot read and understand a textbook or do the necessary math.
It is certainly the case that money is not the only problem; there are a lot of policy issues as well. For example, the controversial "social promotion" policy, which did not allow students to be held back even if they were not performing at or near grade level (this is how high school students who read and write at first grade level come to be: they had to be admitted). The funding problems wind up magnifying the policy problems and the result is an embarrassingly bad education system.