UK is trying to force Apple grant access to any and all persons worldwide not just their own citizens. Practically strong arming an American company to spy on the entire world for them. Why would any other sovereign country allow their own citizens’ privacy to be violated in their own country for UK?
UK requested access to any and all persons worldwide not just people under UK jurisdiction either by citizenship or physical location.
Why would France, Germany, or any other country should allow their citizens in their sovereign country to be treated like that? And what’s next? “If you want to do business in country X then give us all the user data for country Y?
> Verizon and AT&T both said the fines violate their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and that the location data doesn't fall under the law cited by the FCC.
I wonder how a jury would feel about their private information being sold without their consent.
They can feel all they want. If it’s not against the law it’s not against the law.
Call your congressman and ask for comprehensive federal personal data protections. Specifically, make it illegal for companies to sell your personal data or data about your behavior or habits.
Warn them that companies profiting from it will oppose it, but that the people need it.
The advertising industry worked just fine before deep targeting and would survive after it was impossible due to real data protection laws.
I’ve been jumping up and down saying this for the past few years. It’s so important. This is a perfect example of a problem that needs a legislative solution. The lack of one has created quagmires like TikTok that wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t try to pretend it’s okay for domestic companies to take advantage of us either.
FWIW, the 7th Amendment doesn't speak directly to individual rights of the person: "In Suits at common law... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". It's a right of parties in a court case, which even in the 18th century could be corporations.
Many portions of the US Constitution speak to "person", "persons", and "people", such as the 14th Amendment. And the 14th Amendment is often used to preempt state powers, for example making state governments subject to the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech provision. But the 7th Amendment has never been incorporated against the states. An appeal to the 7th Amendment in a federal court case doesn't really touch upon the debate of corporate personhood, at least not the academic debate. Though, there may be other aspects of the case that do.
The locking was supposed to be a lien mechanism for phones so that the carriers could protect their investments. However, unlike a bank, they can continue to benefit from customers after the loan is paid off. So, they just keep the phones locked and make you go through elaborate hoops just to keep you as a customer instead of providing a good service.
If the carriers are not allowed to subsidize devices, there will be easily thousands of financial institutions who would provide these services.
Just like the carriers, by allowing you to pay in installments.
Let’s call it what it is, it’s a carrier financed credit with a lien on the phone. It’s practically a secured credit line and they don’t want to let it go.
The funny thing is none of this would happen if they removed the lien (lock) right after the loan was paid off.
With the carrier the subsidizing the phone is tied to you using the carrier's phone service for 2 or 3 years. The money they make on that makes up for whatever subsidy they gave on the phone.
With a financial institution that subsidizes your phone what other service will they charge you for to make up for the cost of the subsidy?
Resellers don’t pay the sticker price, they buy the phones with a discount and they’re sure to charge a premium or interest.
I’m not saying it’s going to be either faster, better, or cheaper. The carriers are like a cartel that is abusing the phone locking system and should face the consequences. As the things are right now, they’re even locking unlocked phones to their service with immunity and individual users cannot effort to sue them or even worse users are not even allowed to sue them because of forced arbitration clauses. Should nothing change in this system because it benefits a certain range of companies?
I think it should’ve been worded as “easier than signing up” not as easy as. Companies will now make you go through 5 different simple pages so that they can make the account deletion harder.
I think the easier solution is to let individuals sue these companies for their time. You sent me X spam emails or made me spend Y hours to cancel, so pay me Z thousand dollars for inconvenience. Once the financial incentive of putting people into black design patterns is removed, the practice will quickly disappear.
I think it’s missing one crucial context here. As more movies and shows are produced, the price of existing content also goes down. It would be madness to expect new shows every month.
Cable is dead for majority of folks because it is full of ads and not because it had legacy content. It didn’t help but it wasn’t the sole reason.
Also, maybe an unpopular opinion, but maybe the film industry shouldn’t go after the same actors and actresses who earn millions of dollars per episode. So many individuals who have great talents being pushed aside due to this mindset.
Your last point is something that I've never understood.
Having the same actors over and over kind of breaks the 4th wall for me. I would prefer to see new faces, every single time. I don't get why people get so obsessed with a specific set of actors.
Because it's not about the acting, it's about the celebrity. It also explains why some of the biggest earners always play themselves, and the character actors earn less.
It's not about the actors. Movies are just expensive to make. The actors get so much money, because they solve a major problem. It essentially hedges this massive bet, by making a certain amount of attention a sure thing.
They have a way of just getting people to show up. I think there's a bit of a feedback loop here, but the industry has just recognized the value of certain key players. A list celebs will get a bare minimum views (mitigate the worst) as well as have a ton of potential to get wide audience (lots of potential in the investment).
It's a competitive industry, and while that doesn't eliminate the possibility of overpayed "glamour jobs", they would have gotten rid of them if possible.
Should these rules also apply to things like the push notification system, iCloud sync infrastructure, or access to training materials etc.?
Apple might have a valid court case if they are forced to provide a service for free if it's costing them something. European Union is walking a very tight line and the fact that there is no European company declared as a gatekeeper might lead to some concerns.
The materials that are freely available to anyone on the Internet? Besides, if you develop for alternative stores, you still need to pay the $99/year fee.
> the push notification system
How much does running that system cost for the average app? Is Apple willing to allow alternative push notification systems?
Just as a reminder, I'm not saying iOS should stay closed. Mobile computing platforms should be open and allow innovation.
However, we cannot simply force private companies to provide services that costs them money. They are also under no obligation to implement any other continuous communication system to devices on their platform. It is their platform, with good and bad.
Being free or open does not constitute that every valuable product or service Apple created are now in the public domain and nobody should be paying for them.
> However, we cannot simply force private companies to provide services that costs them money.
Ah, but we can.
> They are also under no obligation to implement any other continuous communication system to devices on their platform.
And yes, they are.
Just like how utility companies aren't allowed to shut off the water because someone stopped paying. They can choose to stop doing business if they do not agree with these laws.
So this is not about creating an open and free market but instead forcibly taking the property of private companies and making them sell product at a loss.
Anything that uses their servers they could potentially charge for. Of course they must also make it possible to implement these things yourself without using their servers.
