Nudity in public, that is?
In my naive world developers already had control over pricing.
Most western government thoughts were actually "oh, how do we spin it to continue business as usual with Russia".
Tagliavini commission was created, and as it included 2 German "experts" who had upfront declared Russia had right to invade, so it was clear what kind of task was assigned to them, (thank you Ms Merkel)
Commission has come to surprising conclusions, that Georgian government did not have right to defend it's own people on its own territory (which was bombed by heavy artillery on daily bases), yet Russia had right to defend it's "peacekeepers", (even though there is no evidence that any attack on Russian "peacekeepers" whatsoever has been carried out by Georgians), but just overreacted a bit. (on top of it 2 Georgian peacekeepers were killed on 6th of Aug 2008, somehow neither that did justify actions of the Georgian government (it was actually a mixed Russia-Georgian peacekeeping operation))
Now, Russia is AGAIN getting premium treatment, for just being aggressive. You can clearly see that in most messages (and even journalist comments) in the West.
Oh, there are interests, you know. Old USSR junk that is even remotely usable only vs former USSR republics absolutely has to be stationed in the Ukraine. Oh and there are Russians on the peninsula. And oh, there are interests of Putin there. Oh dare not make him angry, or it is all your fault.
I recall a guy called Chamberlain had similar, as well as extremely successful, approach to aggressors about 70 years ago.
Top Android phones had prices on par of Apple's, please stop repeating that myth.
There are things which I don't like about Android (app permissions being the worst thing), but iOS's dull grid of icon UI is years behind it.
Google didn't just ban Google Maps on iOS.
Apple wanted more features, Google wanted to have more prominent branding in return, Apple didn't want to give that.
So they chose poor user experience just not to say "oh it's google's map apps" more prominently.
For how long does Apple ask to confirm permissions when they are requested? Wasn't it like Apple users didn't even know what an app can and can not access?
And there goes false safety feeling. Remember the Dolphin browser "calling home" to report sites visited by the users?
1) It affected both Android and iOS
2) It was discovered by Andorid users, (and Android is indeed more open)
I don't see any serious issues with Android asking user to confirm permissions, when they are actually exercised by the app. That whole article sounds more like a unfortunate marketing message by Android chief.
Shouldn't he had won the actual court battle, to set a precedent?
iPhones are like 15% market share worldwide, iPads quickly heading into that direction.
They might have sweetest part of the pie, but it's still strange to hear about "controlling position".
If anyone is in such position in that market, it's google.
I hope you were sarcastic.
Nobody can spy on entire internet.
All they could do is archive the data and have the ability to find out what was going on in particular place of interest, if needed.
Argument about secret service/police mistakes is moot, since there is only about surveillance, not about what you need to actually arrest people.
And what if you dial a wrong number and all of it is official? (i.e. court authorized it)
I'm actually working on transnational projects where UK/DE mixed crew outperforming eastern colleagues was so obvious, that management has given up on the idea.
Anyway, if servers would need to be physically located in EU, they will have to have EU crew to support them.
Someone else will decide that and if your phone was at the wrong place at the wrong time and someone misread or misinterpreted some data you're going to be the guy on the floor with assault rifles pointed at your back and your family screaming around you.
But such mistakes can happen regadless of surveillance being legal or illegal.
Oh, right, because we're not voting any representatives of ideologies that have shown no such restraint into power in Europe. Oh, wait...
a) they don't have any chance to get into power
b) if they do get that far, they can change constitution and make all that legal anyway
They do protect corporation interests, no doubt (extending "copyright" to 100 years just because rights on Elvis' songs expire, US supreme court allowing EULAs to prohibit class suits), but what does that have to do with secret services?
Living in Germany, Snowden leaks didn't bother me much (and as I've heard from "Piraten Partei" member, most voters don't care either). I'm of no interests to secret services whatsoever and if checking my emails helps them fight some !@@#ers, I don't mind.
Intent DOES matter to me and I do not think that any government in western democracies would dare misuse this power for oppressing people.
From US perspective, I can understand you guys are worried about some of the surveillance being unconstitutional, but when law is breached at that level, it's like breaking UN laws, there is no authority to punish you.
To my knowledge, US (and, actually Israel) is present at German Exchange Points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_exchange_point) so this move is more of a gesture, rather than actual protection.
Nevertheless Merkel's move is good for EU, already because it would create more jobs in Europe, so I welcome it.