The denial says it does not exist on their systems. It does not deny that the software exists or even that it is actually running, just that it is running on the systems they own.
It is an entirely accurate statement if their systems forward all emails to NSA owned systems in or directly connected to their network.
Not when they understand its limited and communal resource that they are being given unmetered access to.
I have an objection against the usage of the word "communal" here. This suggests it is owned by everyone and one person abuses it. This is not the case.
The user entered a contract with a company one-on-one and exercises the contract to the limit. If they are depriving others from said resource because the traffic is aggregated in the company network, the problem lies with the contract the company issued, not the user.
The word "Abuse" means that she exceeded the spirit and intention of the offer., which is absolutely what was done.
And here is where the problem lies. The company puts "unlimited" on paper and then expects "but nobody will actually use it all". The babysitter was offered a snack and the provider badly misjudged the babysitters' appetite. I say it is rude to offer a snack and then to leave your babysitter hungry.
Spirit and intent is subjective.
For example, I have unlimited service and last week, the Nathan Drake Collection was released, this morning, it was Fallout 4. Together, close to 70GB of data I already downloaded this month. There are probably a few patches for those games coming and in a few days the Nathan Drake 4 multiplayer beta. Add to that my pretty much continuous Spotify usage, several weekly TV episodes @ 1080p or 4K if i can get it, etc....
Is this abuse? I certainly don't think so. But I bet you it is quite a bit more than the average user.
The company is actually putting a smart spin on this. Instead of saying "we badly misjudged this" or, as mentioned elsewhere "we just want to extort more money from you", they are putting the blame on others by saying "a few people abuse it". And since we are having this discussion, they are obviously getting away with it.
Yes. Mandating open firmware, awesome idea. Because we want to need X different compilers compiling code for Y different cpus/mcus running Z basic OSses just to compile our kernel and use our hardware. It will make our lives so much better. Why not just mandate that those embedded cpus must run Linux themselves?
Perhaps it makes sense to differentiate between binary drivers for Linux (bad) and binary blobs running on the embedded hardware taking to opensource drivers (ok)?
Not every statement that differentiates between sexes is sexism.
Men and women are still physically different and experience different environmental pressures when growing up: this influences their behaviour. That is not sexism, that is reality.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker