Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
The issue isn't that they know where you are, the issue is that they're collecting and storing location-bsed data on users who thought they had explicitly opted out of having location data collected.
I presume they also are still collecting the IP addresses, which can be run against any geolocation software they want after the fact.
so: collecting location data? Not an issue.
Using Maxmind's geoIP service? Not an issue.
Asking customers if they want to opt out of having their location data stored, and then storing it anyway? THAT is an issue.
What Mir has over Wayland is a name that is easily confused with a space station. Otherwise, it's more of a KDE vs GNOME-style issue.
Each time I see one of these articles on slashdot or elsewhere, I go through a moment of confusion as I try to figure out how someone got an interview with the guy who developed software for MIR.
That'd be a cool Slashdot interview, by the way
If your kids happen to make money, parents control that money until they are 18. They should also suffer the liability as well.
You can't have one without the other. Either children are responsible or they are not.
That reminds me: I need to LLC my kids.
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Only a "mostly" dead horse...."
Depending on whether you prefer snakes or princesses....
I presume you have the same view on other companies who own the vertical, like Apple, Sony, Honeywell and Lockeed Martin. The view being 1) it's a monopoly just because they own the vertical but have plenty of competition and 2) it's bad.
Interesting... so the best way to save a beleaguered auto mfg industry is to alienate an automobile company that's set to reinvigorate the auto mfg industry, so that they get stuff built by Toyota in Japan instead of by Detroit?
Also, as the vehicles aren't illegal to drive in MI and the current offerings require you to have significant capital and thus significant mobility, what exactly are they preventing here? New car sales in MI? Isn't this how Cuba ended up the way it did?
Their logic astounds me.
Actually, your argument hinges on not one, but two things: 1) money = speech, and 2) corporations = people.
The fact that corporations using money to get their way has been twisted by some into people exercising free speech just shows how far things have gone.
No. Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.
Give me just one good reason why law makers would take legislation proposals written by a lobbyist who represents a non-voting entity and send it to the floor for a vote without so much as a single modification?
Because it's easier than writing it yourself? And hey... we play golf with those guys every Friday; it's not like they'd write up a proposal that's BAD, would they?
you are not a lawyer and are truly ignorant as to the facts in this case.
I find myself in mixed company; most people are truly ignorant as to the facts in this case -- including most lawyers. Of course, I stated nothing about the facts in this case, just that the situation is the same and that case law seems to have veered off from sane decisions in a number of precedent setting cases similar to this.
I'm using the "if it quacks like a duck" comparison, as used in the case against Aereo recently.
The problem is that the Debian folks (along with a lot of other distro maintainers) don't really have a choice. Recent versions of a lot of popular packages simply won't run without it due to a LOT of lobbying by Poettering and Red Hat, and most maintainers simply don't have the resources to fork everything that has those dependencies.
The point is... they DO have a choice. Recent versions of popular packages won't run without it? Recent versions don't get included in Debian. Suddenly, recent versions get tweaked by their maintainers so that they'll get included in Debian/Ubuntu.
Really... if Red Hat is going to pull a Wal Mart, Debian can do the same thing, and be much more effective about it.
and actually, this is the same thing as the FBI pretending to be a terrorist cell and using information fed from informants, or the vice squad using a confiscated phone to set up drops. Definitely nothing new, been contested in court over and over again, and at this point seems to mostly have been accepted as "infringing, but legal by exception" which is, of course, not legal when you look at it too closely, but legal as far as case law goes.
I think what's really happened is that we've allowed government to convince us that "hard on crime" is only valid when the crime is committed by someone with a disreputable history who isn't connected to the government.
I think if the same "hard on crime" rules were applied to government employees, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Yeah; I think everyone needs a copy of "'Alice In Wonderlands) ; DROP TABLE Books ; --.epub" as mentioned by geantvert earlier in this thread. There's a few other titles that are equally entertaining that are must-reads.
Because "plain text" is a MAJOR issue.
If it's encrypted, then Bad Actor #1 (in this case, Adobe) steals all your personal info. All fine and dandy; you can sue them and get them to drop all that personal info, and life goes back to normal.
If it's plain-text, then opening, say, an OverDrive eBook while at Starbucks suddenly makes your entire eBook collection, including titles that have nothing to do with Adobe, available to anyone else listening in on the public WiFi.
so: outrage over the action in the first place, merited. Furor over not even taking pains to protect the data from other eyes, way more than merited.
Think about it like this: which is worse: the guy next door taking pictures through your windows night and day, or the guy next door taking pictures through your windows night and day and posting them all online? They're both bad, but the second is much worse.