I'm sure there are not. Apple really locks down what apps can do, and recording calls would be something they wouldn't allow.

Unless, of course, you're talking of a jailbroken version.

Only loosely on-topic, but why is it socially acceptable for many cat owners to simply let them have the run of the neighborhood?

As a dog owner, I have to keep my dogs strictly controlled, but neighbor's cats will shit all over the place and cause my dogs to go nuts as it flaunts across the front porch.

Is it just because OMG DOG ATTACKS?

You're preaching to the converted on the shitty implementation of this list. I don't support or defend it.

I just don't like people drawing a conclusion from a statement that isn't consistent with it.

You're misunderstand the point. This is simple logic.

A terrorist can have an affiliation with a group, or act independently.

So, a person can be in three states:
A: not a terrorist,
B: a terrorist without group affiliation
C: a terrorist with an affiliation.

The list contains 60% of the people in group C. 40% are either A or B. All of the ones that are B still fit the criteria for the watch list, so those are valid. There isn't enough info to tell us if the distribution is 60% C, 40% B, and 0% A (which would be perfect), or if there is some other mixture where people in group A are listed but shouldn't be, so we don't know how inaccurate the watch list is.

No, but it should be expected. A connection to the Internet is still consider untrusted.

Passenger data in the infotainment system? What makes you think there is anything sensitive in there?
I thought it was just shitty movies and games, along with a GPS map of where the plane is that is viewed only by passengers.

Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I always was told there was a "DRILL" code book and a "LIVE" code book, so the operator would know.

So, the crux of the issue is what the EU laws apply to: Their citizens only, all people in their borders, or all people and objects in their borders.

Very interesting.

Is that a true statement?
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that EU law would not compel you to release that information. However, if you chose to (because you wanted to be released from jail in the US), then the EU would not prevent you.

Your case is only true if Dutch law PREVENTED YOU from accessing your own system.

You own the computer, therefore your access of the system is legal.

You are in US custody, and can be compelled to provide items under court order.

You then legally access your own system remotely, then retrieve the items in question.

Ok, so we agree. I accept and agree that you could try to gain asylum in Amsterdam as soon as you walk off the plane.

Now, take your analogy to what TFA is actually talking about. You could SSH or RDP to your computer sitting in Amsterdam from a US government computer in the states, and hand it to them after logging in. As you said, the action (the command on the computer you are using) is wholly performed on US soil.

Agree?

You're missing one critical piece in this example: the red button doesn't destroy the planet, it sends a message to other humans outside the room to destroy the planet.

This is how I understand both the US and Russian system to function, but I don't know about the Chinese system. I would hope the designers of these systems realize that leaving this decision up to a politician alone is not the right answer, as the other systems have recognized.

Let's run with that analogy:

You're presently in the US, the house you own is in Amsterdam.

You'd be correct that the US can't force the Dutch to execute a search warrant.

That is completely irrelevant, though. You're in the US and perhaps in jail awaiting trial. You've been issued a valid order by a US court to permit US law enforcement into your home in Amsterdam. If you interfere, are you not obstructing US justice?

Perhaps you could just link to the article or a particularly insightful comment you made instead of making a post that adds nothing to the conversation.

Not all of us read every comment on /.

I'm very curious as to why Netflix would degrade their own service and why Comcast and Verizon wouldn't point to this smoking gun every time they're accused of throttling.

This isn't strange, it is considering SOP for most corporations to ban "split-tunneling", where only traffic to the corporate network are sent over VPN.
It also isn't a protocol, it is just a default route to send all traffic over the VPN.

The theory is that by allowing someone to have unfiltered access at the same time as they are connected to the internal corporate network, they are creating a security risk.

The reality is that the "crunchy outside, warm gooey inside" security model as been broken for some time, and modern security is to use a zero-trust network model.

TL;DR: It is quite common but agree it is quite stupid.