Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Google to Testify at Congressional Hearings on Privacy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh I know, I was just being facetious
Speeding tickets: interesting you mention it. There was a law proposed in the 90's when EZ-Pass and such came around to time people's trip. Assuming you follow the speed limit you should reach destination B from A at time C. If you surpassed that predetermined time you would automatically receive a speeding ticket. Of course it never passed, but we are all living in a digital age now. Technology is dictating how we live when it should be the other way around. We can't keep up socially, professionally and legally as it's evolving faster than imagined.
Information is now the "black gold" of the new millennium. Who controls the information (media/cable news is all sponsored by corporations; Fox by News Corp, NBC/MSNC - GE, MS and Comcast) controls the people.
I still can't believe
That the people of Minnesota turned out Norm Colman for a carpet bagging baffoon.
Once again, Congress wasting time while inflation is killing us, our children insurmountable dept rises, and we are engaged in now three wars. But, they are worried about a location table in a phone.
That the people of Minnesota turned out Norm Colman for a carpet bagging baffoon.
Once again, Congress wasting time while inflation is killing us, our children insurmountable dept rises, and we are engaged in now three wars. But, they are worried about a location table in a phone.
Oh I wish that were true. What they are doing is grandstanding for the TV cameras. The laws are written by their interns who got help from industry and NGOs. The senators don't understand anything.
IIRC I don't believe the entire state voted for him
. Regardless of opinion, Congress has a proven track record of doing the easy, or most attractive bills first, it is no surprise that the Debt, among other things are being ignored.
I think the issue of Privacy needs to be addressed with these large corporations to some degree. Perhaps not in the way that Franken is currently now though.
I don't care what you say about the three wars or inflation or whatever, but Al Franken was legitimately elected after months of grueling investigation and recounts.
Quick question: are you from Minnesota? Al Franken has done more for our state than the elected-through-another-person's-death Norm Coleman ever did.
Franken deserves no flak; he's simply defending the Constitutional privacy rights that we all have. If you want to hate him for bringing legitimate concerns to the floor, be my guest, but when Google starts tracking your every move so they can advertise to you in the most tempting way possible, don't complain about it; these concerns could be resolved in this hearing.
TL;DR Franken isn't so bad, privacy is a legitimate concern.
^IMHO
Apple has done a complete 180 from its humble beginnings.
Hypocritical to the extreme, now a sly sinister company in its own right. There is no difference between the two. Google and Apple are twins. Only their products differ.
This is off topic but i had to comment.
This decrease of oil reserves has been predicted for decades yet never has come. There simply is no reason for the companies to spend money to discover these reserves if it is not worth it. Once reserves are used up, more must be discovered and money must be invested to find them. It would not make economic sense for the oil companies to invest billions (mega billions) to discover oil reserves now than in the future, especially as new technology will be developed in the future making it easier and cheaper to find and extract these reserves. Not to mention the fact that oil that has been discovered but cannot be recovered is not counted as reserves. As technology grows, this discovered oil can be counted as it will be possible to extract it (steam extraction for example).
Why would I hate Franken? Hate is a pretty strong feeling to feel for something as pathetic as a politician. I was in Minnesota for 7 years, just left the great state.
Colman was elected under strange conditions, I agree. But so was Franken, and his was even less legitimate. Minnestota has a thing for electing famous freaks I guess. Its a stain on a great state that they are so easily sold.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY! I wish there was, but there isn't. And Franken's not protecting anything. He jumped in to the issue before he understood anything. And now that we understand what is going on we all know this issue is a non-issue in every single way. But we will still have hearings. If he were smart instead of grandstanding he would have waited and got some info instead of making a fool of himself.
Yes there was. You are NOT required by any agency or law to own a mobile phone or wireless device. So you had a choice to have your location preserved or not. You chose to have a phone, and in that choice you gave Apple the right to the data. And at any time you can divest yourself of that device and it will cease to track you. You choose to carry it.
No. You're wrong. Yes people could choose not to buy or carry a mobile phone. But just because THAT choice was made doesn't negate the choice to turn OFF location services which the company states prevents tracking data.
Do you understand? The company lied. Or if you want to believe they didn't sincerely know - their product was faulty.
You're blaming the victim (phone purchasers)?
If you bought a car and the manual and warnings on the dash said that by driving the car over 70 miles an hour you could burn the engine so you drove the care at 50 and the engine still burned out - would you blame the driver? After all - they didn't HAVE to drive a car, did they?
Maybe a bad analogy - but the point is - Apple put in a switch to "Kill" this option. That "kill switch" failed to work. The onus is no longer on the customer who chose to use the phone. The onus is on Apple.
If you don't understand the difference, I'm not going to have a back in forth with you about logic and responsibility.
I agree with you on one point. I'm done arguing about it. You don't want to assume any responsibility for what you agreed to with Apple and logic isn't getting through.
It'll be interesting to see how far any lawsuit gets in this case.
LOL - You're mistaking my argument and discussion with my personal actions/pysche.
I take full responsibility for my actions. I just expect Apple to do the same. Personally - I have location services ON and always have. I understand that "risk" so to speak. But that's not the point and what you aren't comprehending. The point is - by having the option to turn it off, the option should be there. And as soon as Apple created a button in the UI and defined it as turning OFF an option - that's how it should function. It didn't. Apple failed to live up to it's part of the EULA and so on. You keep ignoring this part and wanting to say the customer doesn't want to take ANY responsibility. ANY is the wrong word. And again, you're eliminating Apple's responsibility completely.
So the failed logic - or your failed approach and this argument is flawed.
The customer's (don't make this personal about me - it's not about me) responsibility ENDS the moment the switch to OFF begins. Then it was APPLE'S responsibility.
Still waiting to see a valid detriment from this file. So far the only thing close is the Patriot Act, which can get around the 4th amendment, but I still don't see what they are going to "track".
Apple is basically sighing and wasting 10 minutes to code an alteration due to the stupid PR hit, brought on by people that either aren't bothering to pay attention (I would say, You) or those unable to understand (let's put Franken in this group).
I disagree. They are doing this to avoid future lawsuits and to cover their asses over bugs in their software that broke the EULA. Privacy concerns aside (a big issue but lets put it aside for a second) - The option to turn a feature on and off and advertised as such should do exactly that.
BELIEVE me - if the same "switch" didn't work to turn of Data Roaming and people were hit with charges - no one would be questioning the failure on Apple's behalf.
This is NO different. Off means off. And in this case - it didn't.