One of the things Bernie did worth noting is clearly stating what he means as spying:
"Spying" would include gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business?
Part of me thinks he has evidence of them engaging in something like that, much like Wyden asking Clapper about the wholesale collection effort. But with the clarification, and coming in written form, it makes a 'Not Wittingly' answer less liely (granted, Wyden did forewarm Clapper of the question, and did give his office time to change their answer afterwards).
Why wait and cram?
A little bit of duct tape and you can have a Phone + projector + Kinect!
It might not fit in your pocket though....
I'm doing what I can on the social front (emailing and calling), but if (when) this does pass, what is the best way to route around the damage on a personal level?
We got a large number of suggestions for alternate providers with the GoDaddy debacle; can we get some suggestions of good international VPN / Proxy providers? Alternate suggestions for dealing with this?
If you figure that a lot of carriers charge around $0.10 / text, if someone has more than 21 friends in their phone, it'll cost more in messages charges than buying the app. Some vendors charge even more per text (which is a separate rant), so this could add up FAST.
I don't have a problem with that - heck I hope the author could find a way to get paid by those messages. But I could see some litigious asshat with 700 'friends' in their phone getting pissed when they get a huge bill.
If I was the author, I'd cap it at 21 friends - has all the effects of the shaming, but closely reflects the authors own stated value of the app.
Have you ever bought anything from someone that produced it face to face? Because it really isn't about how 'expensive' it is, that's a given in the transaction - materials have cost. It's about the 'how much extra is this worth?'.
This guy is looking to make a profit, no doubt, but doing so by providing a service where the big telecoms have said there is no profit to be made. I hope he does well, and I hope he makes his way to NoVA (Northern Virginia) 'cause I'll sign up just to support diversity - even if I keep on with my higher level service.
What is profitable for a "Big Business" is gratuitous for most townships in the US of A. The margins most that business runs on at that level are so small that only the scale keeps them from falling apart. What do we get as the consumer? Cheap goods, crap support, but we get a great price from a locked in provider.
Hell, I love my FiOS, but I'd ditch it in a heart beat if someone local could give me similar speed and no Verizon tech support. Or billing dept. run around... Unfortunately, the entry cost is too high in the metro areas, so small companies have to start in the cracks...
tl;dr - Guy sees a market and is going for it where big business isn't. He must be evil.
I like most of the interface, but I'm not happy about not being able to see where I'm going. We always have PDF warning here, and now my browser will no longer give me that same heads up when I'm clicking even a reasonably long link. If it was an option, that would be one thing, but not having a choice on this - it's making me mad.
The issue is that breathalyzers have often been found faulty. Also, the evidence that comes from one is usually only available to the prosecution - i.e. your defense does not have a sample stored for outside testing.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret.
The article misses one huge fact - Mr. Ellsberg is an American, Mr. Assange is not. While Ellsberg leaked information people needed to know, he was doing so to show how his country was lying to the population. Assange shows other countries places where their governments have lied to their people due to US pressure.
Who is served by the release of these cables is a huge difference between the two situations.
If there are such serious concerns for what impact the sale will make, block it on anti-trust issues. I'm not one for government regulation, but we have some laws for situations like this.
These weak concessions, and planning on negotiating them down, makes this appear as little but a panacea for the citizens anger when they start getting shafted.
So what impact would this group have on things such as 'Cyberwar'? A number of the governments mentioned in the article have sunk Billions of dollars into the development of such programs - I doubt they'd be happy to just 'write it off'.
Would this group go after China for hacking the Google servers? Or would it focus on catching nefarious individuals wanted for questioning? (Sorry Interpol - you might do decent things, but you deserve to catch flack for that.)
Would this group ease extradition between countries? If so, aren't there warrants out for the heads of Google and Facebook in Pakistan?
What actual purpose would this working group serve?
If the released reports are biased, the government will give us the whole story, right?
Wikileaks may have a bias, but they also know their message is destroyed if they are shown to censor data for their effort. The 'Collatoral Murder' fisasco showed that. Even there, they provided the full video but put the focus on where *the issue* was for a short attention span viewing crowd.
"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather