You can opt-out, certainly. How many will? How many will not just hit the "update all" button if they do opt out?

How do you know? I mean really, how do you know they aren't sending up your passphrase?

Even if they're not now, how do you know they won't? If TLA government agency asks them to, do you think they wouldn't issue an app update that sent them your passphrase? Assuming you trust them today, will you decline every app update?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but they're valid points. If the submitter is in an industry where "obviously" he can't use Lastpass, then I'm assuming these are operationally valid concerns.

And this is why I'd really like to see Internet providers become common carriers. The Internet has become much too important to let squabbles like this endanger it.

Well most jailbreaks require plugging your device in. That means that your exposure is pretty small and there won't be drive-by exploits like this one.

And Apple may not support the 3GS anymore, but their support record is still stronger than most android phone manufacturers.

If there's a run on banks, getting all of your money back instead of slightly less than half probably isn't going to do you much good anyway.

If the CEO's bonus is tied to performance (it often isn't--instead it's usually written into his contract and so really is just formalized compensation--but let's pretend), then being able to do the same or more with less overhead would be a reason to give a bonus.

It's really quite a bit like herd immunity.

Slashdot hasn't been the same in a very, very long time. But I try not to judge people by their UID.

Well, he's a sci-fi author, so he's probably spent a lot of time thinking about disruptive technology. He's a geek at heart, with a sysadmin and programming background, so his opinion probably isn't any worse than most of Slashdot's subscribers. On the economy? Well, none of us are probably very qualified to discuss it.

I would highly recommend his Laundry series, though.

The intent of a law is regularly subverted for the letter of it. I read the law and know the intent. Doesn't mean a damned thing.

I wouldn't give money to Sony, even if the Vita was free. But your point is taken :)

I think that what they sent out was a bundle which included the purchased game, so the retailer probably owes them nothing.

Oh how horrible for you.

Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It does not seem to differentiate mistakes. That is, none of these people ordered a Vita bundle--they ordered something different. Therefore the merchandise of a Vita bundle was mailed without prior request or consent. What was requested was a particular game.

Unless there is prior case law, I don't think anyone can really say whether the particular order (or an identical one taking place in the US) would qualify as "mailed without prior expressed request."

I'm referencing http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title39/html/USCODE-2011-title39-partIV-chap30-sec3009.htm which doesn't have any obligation to the recipient--and expressly says so: "Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender"

Nothing in this code indicates that you can charge for storage should you return the item, either.

Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?

Back around the dot-com boom, lots of really good deals (re: obvious mistakes, like a 17" monitor for $50) would show up on e-commerce sites. These deals would get passed around, orders would skyrocket, the company would void the orders, and people would whine and moan about the company not holding up their end of the bargain. Eventually, terms of use began including this reserved right to void orders due to pricing mistakes, even if that right needn't be explicitly reserved.

Now a company has made a mistake further into the interaction with their customer--a mistake in delivery. I wonder if we will start to see terms of use/purchase including an obligation to return erroneous deliveries.

I genuinely think that the demarcation of responsibility should be after the item is shipped. You shouldn't place an onus, however small, on a customer to correct your mistake. In a more perfect world, people would be willing to take on such a slight burden as shipping an item back. However, the world is an imperfect place. Screws fall out all the time. We don't always treat others as we would like to be treated, whether due to laziness or greed.

It even sounds like the company was willing arrange to collect the item from the recipient--unless that terminology is slang that could mean "we'll collect it after you've sent it."

I really hate having to mail packages, and the idea that some company can put such an item on my to-do list (mistakenly or not) bothers me. I'd probably do it, but I'd be grumpy about it, and I sure as hell wouldn't make it a priority.

I've never done drugs in my life, nor have I ever possessed any drugs.

In college, I had a pretty nice car. The local police stopped me for failing to use my blinker. When I rolled down the window, they said they smelled marijuana and used that as an excuse to tear apart my car without my consent.

Unfortunately, this experience has lead me to distrust the police, in particular when they say they smell drugs. There's no evidence or reproducible test to corroborate the cop's senses. Sure, they can swab the vehicle, but they'll tear up your seats first (and in my state, at the time at least, there aren't convictions for the residue, so there's no point in actually swabbing.)

I happen to think it would be really cool to have a secret compartment. I think they're technologically nifty, and it would be a reasonably safe place to store things that I don't want to be stolen.