I mean, if you aren't including the OS on the phone as Nokia's responsibility, than what exactly are they responsible for?
This is indeed absolutely ridiculous and priceless statement.
To understand why they gave such a statement, we must know some background. The whole debacle started in 2012 when the Finnish government's IT department had a meeting with Nokia, where Nokia's management assured them that Nokia's Lumia phones had superior security and user privacy to both iPhone and Androids. Consequently, the government bought several Lumia phones for top officials who engage in sensitive communication, like the Prime Minister. Thanks to Snowden leaks, the government in 2013 then received contrary information: that Lumia phones were just as hackable as other smartphones through the inclusion of the Microsoft operating system.
Consequently, the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA) made an officially actionable inquiry to Nokia regarding whether the devices they sold indeed revealed the user's confidential communications, location information and other private information without the user's authorization. The authority warned that if the corporation had knowledge that the phone was leaking such data, and did not answer truthfully, it could be held liable under the criminal law for false statement in official proceedings and failing to report a serious offence.
The company then replied, that they were unable to officially give such an assurance (i.e. they probably knew that the device was leaking private data). Then, FICORA made another official inquiry, asking for even a smaller set of privacy assurances. Nokia was again unable to give an official assurance of privacy of its devices, so in August 2013 officials from FICORA and Nokia had an informal meeting where they tried to find common ground: what kind of privacy assurances Nokia could actually give about its devices. Turns out, Nokia could only go as far as to assure that it had not installed any additional spying modules – and only to those devices that it was selling in Finland, anyway.
So they delimited the official assurance that Nokia should give to only concern the hardware and software it had itself made and was selling in Finland, excluding actions of their subcontractors and business partners (like Microsoft). Well, Nokia was able to give such an assurance, even if it is obviously of no value to consumers. But the company had something to show for FICORA: at least Nokia itself takes Finnish and EU privacy regulations seriously, even if it is in partnerships with other corporations for which it can not make equal assurances.
You made the argument that Wikipedia is an "anarchy". Now you're saying they have too many rules. Which is it?
At what point do you think in a real-world anarchy would be overtaken by the power-hungry, nihilistic individuals seeking to establish an aristocracy of the competent, and be turned into a walled garden of the like-minded only? But wait.. did I just describe Wikipedia? No way...
ANYONE can delete unsourced or improperly sourced material.
"Yes, welcome to delete the false information that we're publishing about you/your company. Oh, you work for that company? Let the ban hammer sing!" COI (Conflict Of Interest), i.e. someone editing an article where they have a stake at play, often means in practice that the user is banned within microseconds, if there are any anonymous editors with differing opinions. The guideline page itself says "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question". The admins have even set up a noticeboard, where anonymous editors can report people they suspect of having "COI".
In short, if people would _follow the fucking rules_ that Wikipedia has made fairly clear, they could edit their own articles as much as they pleased.
This is classical Wikipedia style arrogance. What you are essentially saying, is that Wikipedia will default to publishing blatant misinformation and propaganda added by anonymous and/or pseudonymous editors with impunity. If you happen to disagree with a mispresentation of your person, your company or your product published through Wikipedia, you must jump through numerous hoops and face the newcomer-hostile "Wikipedia community", who will first demand you read through several 10+ page guidelines, manuals and policy discussions. Then, you will need to contact an admin, who might live on a different timezone, to have the page actually modified. And you had better declare your COI on your user page, too. There might be other hoops to jump through as well – just for clearing lies and misrepresentations published on Wikipedia that happen to concern you. And if you at any point make even the slightest of a mistake, you and your whole company (under the "sockpuppet rules") are easily banned from Wikipedia forever.
Why would any sensible person who has better things in life than reading Wikipedia manuals and guidelines ever even try correcting the pages? The hostile and self-proclaimed meritocracy make Wikipedia a truly kafkaesque experience to all outsiders who don't happen to be wiki-nerds or willing to become one. Paid editing, exactly what Wiki-PR seems to have been doing, would be the easy way to make Wikipedia more neutral by allowing companies to hire editors to remove at least some of the blatant propaganda that Wikipedia is currently full of.
Just like with the Linux kernel, it's a high time the Wikipedia community gave up the futile resistance to paid editing. It's already happening, and denying it is only embarrassing with "revelations" like this IBM case. What goes to the whole Wiki-PR debacle, turns out all the company was doing was correcting errors, libel and defamation that anonymous Wikipedia editors hiding behind pseudonyms and IP addresses have been adding to Wikipedia.
As it stands, Wikipedia is essentially an anarchy where anyone can publish all sorts of lies and propaganda, and companies like Wiki-PR are needed so that those, who are damaged by misinformation that anonymous Wikipedia editors publish, can hire neutral editors to fight the anonymous hoaxers. Wikipedia's own volunteer community has been since long overwhelmed by the sheer amounts of vandalism and biased information added every minute, and only the most obvious cases of misinformation and fraud are ever caught. But instead of celebrating the work that Wiki-PR was doing for the people and companies who have fallen victim to the terror of Wikipedia misinformation, the company behind Wikipedia instead chose to demonized Wiki-PR to media and threatened to sue them.
What's really worrying, is that Google gives Wikipedia a "boost" in its search rankings. So for example, any hoaxer can easily use Wikipedia to publish misinformation about people, products and companies that they don't like. Then anyone searching Google for the name of the person, product or company are immediately served the Wikipedia page on the subject. This page is often full of misinformation and propaganda, while those concerned (like the employees of the said company or the person being defamed himself) are forbidden from correcting the article. Previously, Wikipedia admins were satisfied with just banning those fighting the misinformation under the "conflict of interest" doctrine. But now, the company behind Wikipedia has demonstrated that they are ready to sue you if you want to correct the lies that are being distributed through their platform.
It is irrelevant what the British government or its courts think they can do, since this action is clearly against the legal precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights as a breach of the protections guaranteed under the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, in Marttinen v Finland the Court wrote:
The Court reiterates its case-law on the use of coercion to obtain information: although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, the rights relied on by the applicant, the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6
The British courts should take in consideration the legal precedent on EU level and overturn this sentence, or any competent lawyer will take the defendant's case before the EU Human Rights court, who will stuff this sentence up the arsehole of the British government and the tax payer (i.e. the government will have to pay the defendant compensation for the inhumane treatment and legal costs.)
This goes directly against prior decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. There is very clear and unambiguous legal precedent, that a person under criminal investigation need not bear witness against himself. For example. in Marttinen v Finland the Court interpreted the article 6.1 that reads inter alia "In the determination of
The Court reiterates its case-law on the use of coercion to obtain information: although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, the rights relied on by the applicant, the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6
If the defendant is not able to have this sentence overturned in domestic courts, he should hire a lawyer who can bring this case before the European Court of Human Rights ASAP to obtain a decision against the Government of UK. The court will also award compensation for the inhumane treatment of the defendant by the Government, and obligate the government to compensate for the legal expenses.
I was also skeptical when I first saw the news articles (like this one) that said that RSA had published a statement where they supposedly refuted the existence of that NSA deal. The existence of the deal was originally broken by Reuters in this article, where they cite "two sources familiar with the contract" as their sources. But then, after more in-depth analysis of the RSA blog post where they supposedly "denied" the existence of the deal, it was revealed that actually RSA neither denied nor acknowledged that such deal existed in their statement. They are just using general wording to give an impression, that they would certainly never do such thing. But they are not directly denying the existence of the deal.
Now, thinking logically, it's pretty damn clear that they would have denied that such a deal was ever made, if they were in the position of making such a claim. But given they don't directly deny the claims presented by Reuters, it would seem a much more logical explanation that the deal indeed was made, and RSA just went into damage control mode after the publication of the Reuters article. Lying to the public would have meant more damage if Reuters would have later been able to present the actual paper of the deal, so I suppose we can take their lack of directly denying this deal's existence as an admission of sorts. This is also the reason why speakers are canceling their appearance in the conference ("Your company has issued a statement on the topic, but you have not denied this particular claim.")
So, I think we have grounds to believe that there is actually quite much truth to the original story by Reuters. As they say, the deal was "handled by business leaders rather than pure technologists". I am pretty sure that this is a yet-another example of a major manager-level f*ck up. Tech companies very often have all the expertise on the technical personnel level, while managers are a "necessary evil" who often have much fewer insight into the technical field where the company actually operates. Of course, anyone with even the slightest idea of how the IT security field functions, would never ever endanger their company's credibility (at least for such little reward as $10 million), because deals like this tend resurface in the public sphere sooner or later. All we can assume that someone in the management made a very major f*ck-up and made this secret deal with NSA without much consulting from the technical folks. But I am pretty sure that now that this deal has surfaced in the public sphere, it will end up costing RSA a great deal more in lost sales than what the "business leaders" anticipated they could gain in short term from making the deal with NSA.
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.