So all of these papers where funded by the US government in one way or the other? Even those published in other countries?

You should really stop thinking that the world ends at the borders of the US.

There is a mobile version of the YouTube website, if I'm not mistaken.
So there is no need for Microsoft to write an app.

It isn't like an essential service is not available without Microsofts app for Youtube.

You quoted the relevant sentence of me. Can you read the last five words of it? They are 'without telling what they do'

So yeah, I did stick to the substance: They want to have the right to do anything WITHOUT TELLING WHAT THEY DO.

Stop reading sentences halfway through, please.

This is a strawman argument.

The ruling is not about connection data like IP addresses needed to establish connections.
This is about the data that Apple collects outside of that: email addresses, contacts, geolocation.

If I use, say, iCalendar, obviously I allow Apple to collect and save the data of my appointments. But before Apple can share this data with third parties, they have to tell me which third parties and what data. This isn't 'the privacy policy of the internet at large'. This is Apples (and Googles, and Facebooks, ...) policy of threating users data as their own just because it is saved on their servers.

There is no real need for these companies to share the data with third parties. They do this for their own benefit (usually ad revenue). And

No. They expect Apple to follow the law.
The law does not only talk about the wording of your privacy policies, but your actual conduct.

It should be "on the people" because some people may not have a problem with policies and may want to do business with Apple anyway.

What's your point?
The basis of the complaint was, that Apple is not transparent about what it does with the data collected.
If they are transparent about it and tell the users what exactly thy are going to do with the data BEFORE any data is collected, they're basically fine.
And then the users who are fine with can use those services.

But Apple, like many other companies, wants to have the right to do anything without telling what they do.

The European data protection laws lay the groundwork for users to be able to decide freely what services to use and what not.
The basis for a free decision is INFORMATION.

You know what I fear?
That Apple does just what you describe: Change the words of their privacy policies, but don't actually change the processes used to handle data.

Do you make the same distinction when talking about Windows malware?
I doubt it.

Most people say 'virus' and mean 'any malware like viri, trojans, worms et. al.'.

Yeah, right.

If I was a MPAA executive and had the power to make the author write what I want, I would put the blame on the investigator.
Why doesn't he name names? Because he can't obviously. There was no executive present so he can't give a name. He did this on his own. Let's fire him. Case closed.

I'm pretty sure that the dash shows you programs not only by their local name but also by their original name.
At least when I'm typing stuff into the dash, I have non-obvious hits.

Also, you can reach the settings by going top right on the screen. The list is not that long so that going through the icons would have helped.

Well, when I use Goggle Search I do not sign up, I am not presented with any ToS, I just enter my search words and off I go.

Now, there is of cause something like implied consent.
In the US, as far as I know that basically means that you agree to the ToS that Google publishes somewhere.
In Germany (and most of the EU, I guess) there are limits on what rights I can waive with such implied consent. There are even limits on what rights I may not waive explicitly.

So your argument is on shaky ground over here.

Germany has a law that every website (at least any commercial website) has to have a page with legal info, including an email address for contact purposes.

Google did so: http://www.google.de/contact/impressum.html

But when you write an email to the email address listed there, you only get an automated message giving you some FAQs and a note telling you that your email will not be read.

So you can not actually contact Google that way. (Contact in this law is suppost to be a means to start a conversation.)

Now, did Microsoft avoid fulfilling the meaning of the law in this way?
As far as I know: No.
So there doesn't seem to be a reason to go after Microsoft in the same way as Google.

If you know more -- feel free to share.
Otherwise please stop this kind of stupid rant.

I have bad news for you: There are laws in Germany that govern what data about customers a company may collect and that and how it has to answer questions of its customers about stored data.

And unlike in the US, a company can not force the customer to give up his rights by means of a TOS.
The law stipulates that certain rights can not be taken away by contract.

These laws are meant to remove some of the inequality that we have between big companies with well paid lawyers and a customer with less knowledge about the law and less time and money to spend i court to get his rights.

Gernay has rules about how much you can charge for phone hotlines, AND you have to tell up front how expensive a call is.

I know it is hard to understand for some Americans who are used to a system where companies get away with practically everything they want, but here in Europe laws do actually protect the rights of the little man/consumer, not always but often enough.

And no, this doesn't mean that companies can not do business anymore, it just means that they have to calculate certain costs that they don't have in the US.

Yes, exactly: No company should provide a service that they can not sustain while complying with the law.

I always thought that's why you make a business plan before starting an enterprise: To make sure that you can actually do it.