|
|
Let's see, FERPA
It only applies to organizations receiving DOE funds. OH, and it seems it got loosened up a bit in 2012.
So yes, it's a pinkie swear.
Not to mention obstructing the intersection.
No, but various IP owners are lined up waiting to shut down the cloud providers and they would sure enjoy a ruling against Aero.
Additionally, they're operating as a DVR service.
So is Aaron Rents. The only difference is where the DVR actually sits.
This is a case of a new player using the broadcast signal to provide a pay service without remuneration to the broadcast source. The broadcaster is paying the fees for the content and getting nothing in return.
They are getting the ad revenue, just like they get for everyone else in their area that puts up an antenna.
They pay for the content and then add paid advertising to make a profit. All Aero does is increase the value of the ad time by allowing more people in the area to see the ads.
All Aero is actually doing is helping broadcasters fully cover their area. The broadcasters are just upset because they somehow maneuvered the cable companies into paying them for the privilege of helping them whitewash the fence.
There actually were a few crazy laws invented mostly to make cars impractical. Some of them never went off the books, they just got ignored so long that nobody even remembers they exist.
For example, at one time, when crossing an intersection, the driver was to stop the car, turn off the engine, get out and yell loudly. If nobody answered, he was to honk a loud horn. If nobody answered, he was to fire a gun into the air. Then, finally he was permitted to restart the car and continue. Supposedly this was to avoid collisions in the intersection.
There's no need for them to be an actual majority. Besides that, they could show others how to do it.
And before you rant on about use of this data, I'm saying it is going to be used for EXACTLY THE REASON IT WAS COLLECTED.
And they are willing to back that with a contract where changes in terms are explicitly forbidden, right? Because all I see are vague statements that aren't even promises.
I really don't care if the company has any resale value or not. I'm more concerned that they not collect kids' data under color of government (since school is compulsory) and then change management and sell it to the highest bidder. If they can't make a go of it under that constraint, we're better off without them.
If they would like to not purge the data, they will have to honor the terms the data was collected under.
Compiling can be very hard if the patches don't apply cleanly.
Hardware RNGs are in the same boat. Was it subverted by the manufacturer? Does it have a subtle bias we haven't discovered yet? Can it be biased by external conditions?
No, but it does leave you wondering about the other things they recommended.
The problem is who owns the data. The deep secret about your 'permanent record' that principals talk about when you're in school is that once you graduate, they sit on paper in a disused basement until destroyed by floods, fire, or rats. Perhaps these days they sit on tapes that become unreadable even sooner.
The good news is that they don't get sold to credit agencies, insurance companies or other lowlifes. Even if they wanted to sell it, they can't. It's just too hard to retrieve.
The harm of collecting it all under some 3rd party that pinkie swears it won't misuse the data is that it will, sooner or later, be quietly sold to those lowlifes I mentioned.
Not to mention it totally screws up the marketing plans. How are they going to help marketers target individual children when they have anonymized data?
From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk