The problem with your argument isPeople already have a legal right to that information.
And they already have access to that information, they just didn't gather it while it was happening. You know who you call, and your caller-id box shows who called you and when. Oh, you didn't write down every call, and you cleared the caller ID box every so often? You threw the information away and then expect the phone company to give you a copy of their records?
If you read the article, you would see that he specfically referenced an Australian law that says they HAVE to give out the information.
The law refers to "personal information". What is the legal definition of personal information as it applies to that law? Is a phone company's list of who you called "personal information", or is it a billing record belonging to the phone company?
but am sorely disappointed in both your knowledge of Australian law and in failing to read the article.
I could say that I am sorely disappointed that you are trying to apply common English definitions to legal phrases, but that wouldn't be productive or useful.
NPP section 6 says: "Gives individuals a general right of access to their personal information, and the right to have that information corrected if it is inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date."
Is call usage data "personal information" as defined by law? Or is it billing data collected to bill a customer?
As for the "unlisted" claim, that's not the correct criterion. The correct criterion should be "called ID blocked". That seems obvious to me. The person asking for the data will have the caller ID data already (if they have that service) and they'll know who they called, or they could if they logged their own data.
What they will not have is the name and address of the caller which wouldn't be part of the call records anyway. Telstra would have to verify the setting of the caller's caller-id blocking on the day that the call was made to know if they should release the number or not, and that is going to be very very hard to do.
If so, are they exploiting some vulnerability in XP that is never-to-be-patched?
They are exploiting a vulnerability that is found in almost every operating system, and which has yet to be patched by any vendor. It's called "running a program". As the summary says:
First, they gain physical access to the ATMs and insert a bootable CD to install the Tyupkin malware.
Of course, the stupid and illegal actions of the police might have gotten her killed without any warning to her of any possible threat, so there's that too.
Of course, simply bringing her in for questioning and then letting her go could have gotten her killed without any warning, too. She got involved with drug dealers, and any one of them could have decided she was let go (or in this case, given just probation) for ratting him out. If they are going to kill her for being a snitch on Facebook, then why would they hesitate to kill her for being a snitch while sitting in the interrogation room?
I've experienced rare Internet outages and usually wait 20 minutes or so to call to see if there's a problem and the auto answer will confirm that but also say that one can get more information about outages by going to Comcast's home page.
Dude, you should know, you always get better response from customer support about internet outages if you send them an email instead of calling.
I once had a Comcast call handler try to upsell me to Xfinity voice for my home phone while I was calling about a complete cable outage (no TV, no Internet).
So is there any good reason why Adobe would do this that benefits the customer?
Yes.
"I see you are reading 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Adobe recommends the following books: 'Mein Kampf' by A. Hitler, 'Banking and Currency and the Money Trust' by C.A. Lindbergh, and 'God is Not Great' by C. Hitchens."
Unfortunately, this also means that you now need DMCA-banned circumvention tools just to read a damn library book without Adobe looking over your shoulder...
Except, as has already been noted, that library book probably came through Overdrive which uses Adobe Digital Editions. Your criminal conspiracy to thwart publisher rights management needs the file that you don't get until ADE downloads it for you.
Now, if you can tell me some other software that will handle the
or we could just have the nanny state certify drug manufacturers and then people don't have to die nearly so much in the first place. I think that is a better world so that's the one I support.
On the other side of that coin are the people who die because the nanny state hasn't gotten around to, or simply won't, certify drugs that would save their lives, or who decertify other drugs because a few people with good lawyers suffered negative side effects.
I don't understand your comments about the 500 texts per month fee. Mine are unlimited.
You are on a different plan. Mine were not. I got fifty, except they never counted the texts that came through the email-SMS gateway. That's until they shut down the gateway that dealt with aliases instead of just nnnnnnnnnn@tmomail.com, then they started counting, and that's when I started asking about "no overages" and why I was paying extra for more texts. Three different CS agents told me of course I was covered so I stopped paying extra. One customer relations person from Seattle told me I was not. Nobody told me that the international texts I've never paid for before were also covered by having that 500 texts service.
It's clearly unlimited in the US per the contract.
What contract? I haven't had one for ten years. I thought you said you were also off-contract. Now, I would expect it would be clearly unlimited based on the public statements of the CEO when he announced "no overages", and three CS thought it was clearly unlimited for me, but customer relations says otherwise. Now, she didn't talk about "clear", she just said I didn't have unlimited texts but couldn't explain why my online usage that said I had used "5 of unlimited" didn't mean "unlimited."
I believe this is a new feature that just started last summer, but maybe that's just when I found out about it.
I don't know when it started, but I've never paid for a text while international, until maybe this last trip. I'll have to see how they ding me when the bill comes out. According to the online information I was pointed to, it has to do with how many texts are in your plan's "bucket", and for awhile I had zero.
T-Mobile's standard plan has unlimited data, plain and simple.
Like I said, you're on a different plan.
I'm not paying to get more data - that's a misnomer. I'm merely paying to get more data delivered at a higher speed.
I'm paying to get any at all. If I didn't pay to get some, then I'd get charged a transient fee, which means anything over 0.
And, because T-Mobile is a worldwide company and not just US based, they allow us to use their services in specified foreign countries for free as long as we have the right type of phone (for the right frequencies in those countries).
It has nothing to do with T-Mobile being an international company, because were that the prime consideration, I wouldn't have to pay $15/Mb for international roaming data. It's based on your plan.
If you're annoyed at overage fees, then get off the old grandfathered plans and get the new plan where everything is included.
At $50/line, you're paying almost twice what I am and domestic for me is now unlimited. I could get by international now by using texts if I could figure out some way to get them without my phone registering on the network so all my US calls get forwarded at outrageous $ per minute until I get back to the US.
I can't find a $40/month plan like you say you're getting. The cheapest Simple Choice is $50 and goes up from there. The "Simple Starter" is $45 with 2GB, and it has "no overages" for data because you get only 2GB/month -- data is shut off at the limit. An interesting definition of "unlimited" and "no overages".
Being able to successfully make the first move takes courage, self-confidence, communication skills, at least a pretense of extroversion, and charisma.
Apparently women like men with those skills, to the point that they'll date them and then complain when the men keep using those skills to find other women to date at the same time.
Note to women: if you dated and then married a guy who is charming and able to approach a strange woman (you) with self-confidence, do you really have any right to complain when he continues to exhibit those characteristics after you are married?
That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.
To continue the stereotypical car analogy here, it puts us in the driver's seat, but it means we get to deal with the rejection when we see someone along the side of the road we want to offer a lift to, and lose big time when we miss seeing the perfect passenger.
Why is it better to be "in the driver's seat" than to share driving responsibility and expect the woman to stop and offer us a ride if she's interested in doing so?
Forgetting the analogy -- complaining about "always having to make the first move" doesn't mean there is a desire to NEVER make the first move. Men being expected to always make the first move means we lose out on all the opportunities where we didn't notice them but the other person did and was waiting for us to do something about it. Why that would be called "good" and not a "lose/lose situation" is a mystery.
$45 unlimited. nuff said.
$45 unlimited. Poor coverage where I am. A phone that constantly rebooted all by itself every five minutes or so. Customer support that was almost impossible to reach. Returns department that loses phones. Customer support where it took more than an hour to cancel service after they could be reached.
There's more to a good company than just cut-rate pricing. Nuff said.
Seemingly every year or two T-Mobile actually lowers their price.
In all the years I've been with them, they've never once lowered their price to me. Not once. And I started with VoiceStream, that's how long I've been with them in the US.
They include 1GB of 4G LTE data per line per month, and then I pay an extra $10 per line per month to bump both of them up to 3GB of LTE each.
So the "no overages fees" claim doesn't apply to you, either. You shouldn't have to pay more to get more. That's T-Mobile's marketing. That it doesn't apply to everyone is one downside to T-Mobile.
I traveled to another country over the summer, and I was even able to use my phone for free over there. It was awesome!
Yes, isn't it? I found out that by cancelling the extra 500 texts/month for $2.99 I was paying for, based on T-Mobile service reps swearing up and down multiple times that I didn't need it because "no overages, ever!" and "it doesn't matter how many texts, you won't pay for them", I wound up being subject to 50 cents EACH for texts while I travel internationally.
There's no contract, no overage fees, no nonsense.
I haven't had a T-Mobile contract for, ummm, ten years? There are overage fees -- for some of their plans. (I'd say a plan that has 50 texts/month, that is shown on the website as "N out of unlimited" for usage, where you have to pay for every text you send counts as having an "overage fee".) And nonsense? they've got that in spades. (Ditto for the "N of unlimited" having any fee for texts.)
But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony.
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants.
And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.
