What makes you think Cold Fjord is for small government? He's the NSA's most prolific /. shill.

It sounds like you are thinking the drawings encourage pedophilia when perhaps, allowing drawings protects real children. There is probably a genetic predisposition or sometimes, organic brain diseases that in most cases, won't be "cured" ( http://articles.latimes.com/20... ). So, if instead we look toward harm reduction, using drawings is a perfect solution because it gives an outlet that harms absolutely nobody and may well serve as an alternative to actually hurting kids for those infected with this disease.

There is a distinction in how you interact with a browser, and the actual content of your searches. Blurring this line is pretty ugly. Apple needs to know stuff like: The user clicked in the search field, typed stuff, and then because of a 60s delay in executing the search, probably couldn't see or understand the search icon, and clearly didn't know to press return (or the phone rang). To get this, Apple doesn't need to know what the person typed. But if that is the claim -- the need to know what is typed -- why not just enable the video camera and microphone too -- that would make it easier to figure out if the person is having problems with the Safari interface, or just answering a text on his phone. I'm guessing people would be sort of grossed out by that, but it fits right in with what you say they need, so why not go total surveillance?

Are you joking? Why not have the local program test the server itself with the usual prefixes for mail servers? Then the local app can try the usual ports for SSL. Then it can tell the user the results. After a failure, it could even say, "hey, that server isn't responding to the usual requests, would you like me to check with Apple to see if there is something special about it and Apple knows that secret sauce?"

Do you want to tell me with a straight face that this interaction could not be programmed into a local application that sends nothing to Apple (except by express request on the user's part)? That this interaction is so amazingly hard, it has to be done remotely on a bank Apple's servers?

In TFA, the author claims he did turn stuff off. Have you run a network sniffer to watch your computer's behavior, or are you trusting that "off" means off.

I think I understand -- you are saying the software operates as designed, so no problems here.

I think what you aren't getting is that the way the software is designed is what ticks off people who care about their privacy.

Seriously, why should mail.app inform apple that I set up an account randomMailHost.com? That the software does leads you to write [closed: behaves correctly]. This is not at all "correct" from many users' points of view -- you should use a phrase that is more factual and uses words with less judgment involved, for example: [closed: behaves as _designed_ (and if you don't like the design, suck it)].

From TFA:

Having read DuckDuckGo's privacy statements, you might decide to switch Safari's default search to DuckDuckGo. If we enter a new search in Safari, we can then search the logged data to see who the search terms are actually sent to.

The logs show that a copy of your Safari searches are still sent to Apple, even when selecting DuckDuckGo as your search provider, and 'Spotlight Suggestions' are disabled in System Preferences > Spotlight.

Or why when setting up an email account does the mail app send the domain name you enter to apple?

I say all this as a person who has been using mac laptops for the last 9 or 10 years. I'm obviously not an apple hater but this seriously makes me question whether I'll buy another one. It's a pretty astounding intrusion demonstrating some rather staggering hubris.

Yeah, it should be opt-in. At the very least, opt-out.

As an aside, I have one of those logitech Bluetooth keyboards with the solar panel and the ability to store connection info for three devices and then switch between them by pushing one of the three physical select buttons. Was awesome -- for 9 months. Now it won't turn on at all.

If you take the offer under Title II for the right of way, you ARE subject to boundaries and demands -- that is where the "common carrier" thing comes from.

grr ...

obviously, that would be:

This is a corollary of "Privatize profits, socialize losses" -- "Privatize profits, socialize business expenses."

He's right: idiot.

Read this before you comment more:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5...

Essentially, these companies claim Title II status whenever they want to build something because under Title II they don't have to pay for right of way to government or private entities, get to use poles and tunnels without having to pay, etc., -- in other words they get a subsidy -- but when it comes to charging customers, they disclaim Title II status.

This is a corollary of "Privatize profits, socialize expenses" -- "Privatize profits, socialize business expenses."

Yes Yes Yes.

This bullshit about not calling them common carriers simply ensures and guarantees monopoly.

Oh my ... I hadn't even considered the double entendre!

He doesn't even have to read the article, it's right in the summary ("handling infected bush meat").