Ok, I don't mean it shouldn't be bring up during the campaigning time. It is just that during the past few years we are having bunch of security issues, be it just cyber ransom or targeting big companies, local municipalities or schools. And all these w/o being able to capture culprits and real solutions to the problems. Just imagining this thing get hacked?

I meant GitHub has the right to kick any project off its server. Its server is its property afterall. Neither do I care about the project existance, but using reasoning as vague as this? I mean, does the code stored on the GitHub server contain any nudity, or any pornographic material? This does sound a lot like Apple in the early day trying to prohibit certain app, but give a reason that any web browsers, including its own, wouldn't pass either. I'm not sure anyone ever try this, but what if this app were to be used on, says a doll, lego figure, animal or any ordinary object material (eg: fruits, water bottles and etc)? Would its result be consider pornographically related at all?

Even if the manufacturer does make such on/off switch, can you still trust that switch to do what it suppose to do and protect your privacy. Seriously, I trust a black tape that mask over webcam better than a switch implemented by the laptop manufacturer. And why is it that just about all the laptop from the most cheapest to most expensive have web cam built in, when 90% of laptop users dont use the webcam? So the buyer can spend more money on equpment we dont need and yet pay extra for a switch to turn it off?

It is true but it is publically visually harder to spot also. There are people making money on car rental business. So, how do you publically visually tell the difference between own/rent.

Here is one better:
Owning an Android phone with CFW is the number one way to guess if you are more intelligent or not.

Maybe the researcher should do that next

That must be the politician in you that is talking.

Not saying that everyone should or shouldn't give feedback per the term they agree with. But imagine certain group of people like journalists/reviewers, and MS know about them using beta products to gain insight/benchmark and writing review. Obviously you don't want MS to start gaming the system knowing which beta copy they are using and tweak the setting that would work well for particular system/task, but not working well in real life. So, yes, there are certain exception that I would rather have MS not knowing everything, even if those people accept the terms.

lol at gamemaker, software fix=upgrade your hardware.

I would be surprise if NSA does not have them on the servers somewhere.

I didn't say suing Apple for bundling Google search in the iOS but rather for bundling Apple services into iOS.

Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing of monopoly power. In the US, it's okay to have monopoly power, but it's not okay to abuse it. I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win. I believe if Apple were to have iOS unbundle with other Apple services, or even possible to put on devices made by other manufacturers, wouldn't those phone be cheaper? A hell lots cheaper?

I mean, I think the plaintiff trying to sue Google Android but paint the case as suing Android. At best, the plaintiff could sue the handset maker. We know custom ROMS exist back then. It's not like Google forbid anyone to make an android handset w/o putting any Google services. Amazon did it, as well as B&N. Failed aside, they were phones & tablets that used Android w/o any of the build in Google services and they could have use other search engine as default. The successful market of the Android phones & tablets are because they are bundle with Google services(and that require Google search engine as default per the contract), not because they were impossible to un-bundle Google services and Android. I don't think Google were telling all the phone manufacturers that they cannot make product based on AOSP and not include any of the Google services. It may be possible that HTC and Samsung are under a (very) long term contract that they won't make any Android based product w/o Google services, hence Samsung start making a Tizen. But I think it's more likely that Samsung was thinking of a way to be less dependent on Google. But then neither Samsung nor HTC have a clear monopoly in smartphone market or even android smartphone market. Samsung may have a hugh lead in android smartphone market but it still not like 80-90% Windows monopoly in the PC industry. Even if they were to sue the handset maker, I think both the Galaxy S3 and EVO 3D does have bootloader unlock. Meaning they were possible to turn those specific phone whey both the plaintiffs own into custom ROM that doesn't use any of the Google services, less useful but possible. BTW, I still don't think a case like this is comparable to the inclusion/integration of IE in Windows.

Maybe next year ACM will blame Tesla and Samsung. In the US, female population is like 3-to-1 against male. Most of the tech company ACM pointed out are US tech companies, I'm confuse why would any group thinks tech companies should give special privilege or attention to the majority of the 75% population that have no interest in this field. When I was in high school, I don't see any one outside of my family give a crap about what field I interested in. And when I was in high school, I think majority of the male students only interest in female students and vice-versa. Even clubs like jeopardy or math and science were mostly comprised of male students like 9-to-1 if that club even had a female members. I don't think it was because they had any prejudice against female students, I was sure that they would welcome any female student to join the club. What I saw was many of the female students spent their lunch and after school hours at the gym watching basketball players instead. Not sure if they are the g/f of those players, fans or would be. But most of them didn't even care about basketball to begin with. There weren't even google or facebook back then. Most of those tech employees would be around my age (25-40). Suddenly now people think it's a problem and them to be blame? For the record I'm not working for any of those named companies. I played basketball and did some body building back in the junior high, then got bore and quit before high school. Did some programming in HS, but realized I didn't want that type of job. It would be fun doing that once in a while, but not spending 8-10 hours a day at the desk coding 6 days a week. Things that would become some what popular, I did that at least 3-5 years ahead. And I realized those weren't for me. What concerned me is that just about any dependent study groups, government or journalist/bloggers(can't very tell them apart any more), they weren't blaming parents. Why is that? Parents are the most influential people for any male and female since their birth. And it's their job to give their kids guidance. Students spend maybe 6-7 hours a day at school. And more at home, if they spend less at home that's the parents fault also. Yet, the tech industry is to blame?

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I don't see why does it have to be that way. While not saying what my opinion is, as I don't see how that's matter whether what he is to me. What matter is what he did? I think it's kinda pointless what to label him. In fact, even if he is being labeled both, as I see that they can be mutually inclusive, we wouldn't have been all pissed off at the NSA if not for what he did. Yes, even people who call him traitor can still pissed at NSA, and they all wouldn't say so if not for what Snowden leaked. While many want to argue that what NSA did was with in the power granted by Patriot Act. But as I recalled, there were many who weren't happy when we first heard of the Patriot Act either. Regardless of what it was, the leak is definitely in a good timing. As many now know that there need to be a change and in favor for the change toward more privacy and the time for the Patriot Act to be review is soon. It could be worse if the leak were to come out much later, say after Patriot Act get a permanant stamp.

This doesn't sound like vulnerability on the encryption at all but rather Android allow modification of routing table instead. This means any existing encryption stay in tact, just rather the data is going to be re-routed out of the VPN tunnel.

Let me make it clear, I'm not defending anyone here.
The question I have to raise is, why giving one guy too much control in the first place? Let's look at what if he got hit by a car and die instead? So, is the lawyer or the judge gonna force the password out of him? What if you were that admin and were using a USB keyboard password like ubikey, then reset/format that key after you got fired? This is legitimate. Also, we should look at password seperately from the network infrastructure. The employer should be looking at a way to get infrastructure back not the password. Eg: the judge have force him to create another admin account and give that to the employer instead of having to reveal his own password.