|
|
So is arguably worse than existing Android/iOS tablets on price and hardware.
Which might clue you in that perhaps Surface RT is not meant for the enterprise. Which is why Microsoft offers
1. Powerful yet expensive core i5 powered tables capable of ultrabook type computing, with all the enterprise benefits of Windows (Surface Pro)
2. Light and cheap atom powered tablets that can at least run legacy x86 applications but have the battery life of ARM powered devices (Latitude 10)
This is what enterprise is now interested in. That's why 32% of mobile tech workers want a Windows tablet as their next device, compared to 26% for iPad and a mere 12% for Android. (Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/Forrester_2013_Mobile_Workforce_Adoption_Trends_Feb2013.pdf)
Windows RT is microsoft's answer to the iPad home market. It's lacking apps now, yeah that's a given as Metro is a new platform. But there's nothing specifically that Windows RT cannot do that iPad can. Windows RT outshines iPad in several areas like being able to use two apps side by side, being able to use multiple accounts, having an open filesystem for using USB drives, and being able to view flash content like Hulu. It's probably not on equal footing yet, mostly because of the apps, but that will grow in time. But don't confuse Surface RT as Microsoft's answer to the iPad in the enterprise. Windows 8 tablets are for that purpose.
There are a number of problems with this subpoena.
First, once Cooper and Godfread filed their notice of removal, the state court lost all jurisdiction over the matter (at least unless or until the case is sent back) and all proceedings in state court halted by operation of law — including the obligation to respond to outstanding discovery. Prenda Law would need to re-issue the subpoena in the federal proceeding.
Second, though I am looking into it, it's not clear to me whether Prenda Law followed the requisite procedure under the Uniform Interstate Discovery Act required for them to serve a subpoena on a California company in an Illinois case. We'll see.
Third, the subpoena is ridiculously overbroad. It asks for the IP addresses of everyone who visited the sites, not just people who made specified comments — let alone comments that could plausibly be deemed defamatory. Moreover, it demands IP addresses for a period in 2011 before Prenda Law existed, and therefore before it plausibly could have been defamed or wronged.
Fourth, under emerging doctrines governing attempts to discover the identity of anonymous commenters, it is doubtful that Prenda Law can justify its broad subpoena. Prenda's lawsuit, as I earlier pointed out, is a mish-mash of complaints about statements of fact (which could conceivably be defamatory) and statements of opinion (which cannot). Under these circumstances a court should quash the overbroad subpoena under the increasingly prevalent rule that a plaintiff must make some sort of preliminary showing to discover information about the identities of anonymous speakers.
Granted *Microsoft*
Microsoft does *not* do the same thing. That's what this is all about. Microsoft scans email for viruses and spam. It does not go the extra step of delivering ads based on the contents. That is the problem.
AFAIK Bing / MS Mail (whatever its called now) has historically scanned email in the same way as google
And you would be wrong.
Here is Microsoft's statement on what Outlook does not do:
Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately. Just like the postal service sorts and scans mail and packages for dangerous explosives and biohazards, Outlook.com scans your mail to help prevent spam, gray mail, phishing scams, viruses, malware, and other dangers and annoyances. Microsoft and its email services, including Outlook.com, Hotmail, and Office 365, do not use the content of customers’ private emails, communications, or documents to target advertising.
http://www.scroogled.com/OurPosition
This has been Microsoft's position since at least 2010.
Microsoft does target ads through tracking cookies, like Google, yes. But they offer, like Google, a nice way to opt out of this. This site shows all the information they have on you and a centralized way to opt out of it all: https://choice.microsoft.com/en-US
As for Bing, one of the nicer points of its privacy policy over Google is this statement:
We store search terms (and the cookie IDs associated with search terms) separately from any account information that directly identifies the user, such as name, e-mail address, or phone numbers. We have technological safeguards in place designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data and we remove the entirety of the IP address after 6 months, cookies and other cross session identifiers, after 18 months.
http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/bing/default.aspx
I don't believe Google has a similar clause in their privacy policy.
Finally, it's worth remembering that Google earns 96% of their revenue from advertising. They are an advertising company and thrive on delivering relevant ads to you. When it comes down to it, when the choice is between your privacy and their company, your interests will always lose.
If you are going to walk on thin ice, you may as well dance.