- Q. How about our current president?
- A. Well, heâ(TM)s helping us on criminal justice reform, so weâ(TM)re grateful on that. And thereâ(TM)s a sign they may be beginning to realize the inequity and the harm that this occupational licensing does.
Shouldn't the rule for a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages be exactly the same as a private user who sends his or her drone out to pick up and retrieve a package?
This feels like a description of a war between Al Qaeda and ISIL.
A company with no regard to the law wades into territory infested with other groups who similarly don't give a rat's behind about the law. It's not even popcorn worthy...
The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech)
First amendment protections only extend to protections against the government-- not actions by private entities. Your "freedom of speech" does not include any requirement on me to provide you with a platform to make that speech.
Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing.
Yes, actually, there are various kinds of wrongdoing that can get your app pulled. Violating the terms of the agreement you have with Apple is just one of many things, including if your app includes pornography or hate speech, or any number of other things. Ultimately, you're talking about a store that Apple is running, and they have the freedom to pull products from their shelves. Could you imagine the alternative in a brick-and-mortar situation? You own a store, and you just have to stock your shelves with anyone who wants to sell their products at your stores, regardless of whether you find their product objectionable, dangerous, or misleading, and regardless of whether those vendors honor their agreements with you?
If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google.
So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.
And let's not make any mistake here-- iFixit agreed to an NDA and then broke it-- not just the letter of it, but the spirit of it. Regardless of what you think the penalty should be, it's unambiguous that iFixit was in the wrong here.
What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?
When the "execution" is the enforcement of a pre-existing legal agreement, I'm not sure I'd call it anything. Maybe "standard business practices"? Like if I rented an apartment from you and then I never paid any rent and you responded with eviction proceedings, as specified by the lease and the requirements of the jurisdiction, what would you call that? Perhaps, "an appropriate and predictable response"? Or "exactly the outcome you would expect"?
If they would like to give it a try, they could seek a court order to take down the iFixit app on the basis of an NDA violation.
So you want them to go to court against themselves to get themselves to stop selling something in their own store.
But them doing it on their own vs based on a court order is the difference between due process and vigilante justice.
Really? Are you really going to go with "vigilante justice"?
I believe these refer to cooling towers used for air conditioning, from context. These are more efficient versions (if I understand it correctly) of the compressor (the box that's usually outside as part of a normal two unit home air conditioning system), that use water evaporation to cool the system.
So by that argument, any terms that Apple has for placing apps in their app store (other than those barring criminal or user-harming behavior) are inherently unethical. I think that's debatable, especially depending on your definitions of "criminal behavior" or "user-harming behavior". For example, iFixit broke their legal agreement with Apple: is that "criminal" behavior? You could say that, no, it's not, because it's a civil dispute and not technically "criminal". On the other hand, copyright, trademark, and patent disputes are generally civil disputes, so can Apple remove content where the intellectual property ownership is in dispute?
To be honest, securing email is not that hard, unless you want to "manually" set up a structure to check messages for weird stuff.
It's not that complicated, but it's complicated enough that I've seen plenty of people mess it up. And no, it's not just "checking messages for weird stuff". If you think that's all that's involved, then you don't know enough to run a mail server.
Do you know what SSL certificates are, or how to set one up? Do you know how to set up your firewall to allow only the appropriate ports to the Exchange server, and which ports need to be allowed? Do you understand the security implications of allowing incoming traffic to your network? Do you need to set up multiple Exchange servers with different roles, and do you know what the security implications of that would be? Do you know what MX servers are, and how to set it up so that you don't lose incoming email during a server outage? Do you know how to do a proper backup/restore of your Exchange environment, and how to secure those backups both from breach and loss? Do you know if your email system currently has any unpatched vulnerabilities? Do you have a way of mitigating those vulnerabilities? Do you have a good regimen for installing updates and patches, including testing to prevent unforeseen downtime?
Security isn't just about protecting yourself from malicious email.
You can "outsource" an email hygiene service, to handle the inbound of your email, clean it, and deliver it to your own server
Whoa there. I thought we just established that you're unwilling to trust an outside vendor with your email, and now you're planning on routing all of your email through an outside vendor? If I were paranoid enough about my email to refuse to use a hosted provider, I don't think I'd be willing to use a hosted spam filtering service.
Yes, all libertarians I know love lawsuits, and truly believe this country would be better off with fewer clearly defined rules, and more lawsuits.
Hold on, my sarcasm meter just broke down.
Sometimes that's a good thing though. It took decades for the *ix community to realize that, actually, yes, email, rules applying to email, address books (both local and LDAP), and calendars go together, and many are still trying to figure out SSO, largely because the latter isn't as relevant to home networks as, say, email.
The problem isn't integration, it's bad integration. Netscape really screwed everyone over by making Communicator some all-in-one master-of-nothing PoC in the 1990s, creating unnecessary bloatware that influenced a generation of geeks to fear attempts to integrate.
Exchange Server is something I reluctantly admit Microsoft got completely 100% right.
One thing about Microsoft these days is their relentless push to stop you using their software on-premises, or at least out of their control.
I don't think Microsoft is driving that trend. People want it. Microsoft has actually been slow to respond, because I think they'd actually prefer that you keep running their servers onsite. My sense is that their push toward "the cloud" is actually an attempt to prevent other cloud providers from drinking their milkshake, and in fact they've been too slow to react.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman