Seems like the war on encryption ought to be over now. Encryption would have helped in this case. The gov't can't very well now argue that only criminals need encryption. All you have to do is say, "What, you don't like encryption? What about OPM? ... Thought so."
Whoever didn't encrypt this data was negligent at a minimum. Gov't being what it is, no one will be fired...
With a 300 Kbps limit and a 150GB data cap, the bandwidth limit is a bonus feature to keep the user from exceeding the cap. At that speed it would take 48 days to exceed the data cap, so the user is SAFE.
Selling out your principles is a lot like bullying. It only works if most people turn a blind eye. Selling out is tacitly accepted by almost everyone, so you can fault Dodd for doing it, but hardly blame him. I mean, think of the $$$. Sigh.
Re: It's not just what they left out, but what they stuck in...
Exactly. I'm an option D type, and I calculate my costs as $9 for netflix only (well, $16 because I still get DVDs a few times a month). That's because I need my internet connection (for work) whether or not I use it to stream video or not.
$9 or $16 is well below the $85 they calculate. That's the number for comparison.
"Verizon wants you to construe this remark about privacy to mean that we care about privacy, and privacy is considered in a small but unprovable way as we develop new products and services for which the primary concern is how much revenue they generate. As we figure out how to wring more and more advertising revenue out of sneakily providing your eyeballs to third parties, we'll talk about protecting your privacy maybe about as well as, but not more than any other mobile service provider. We listen when our customers complain enough that our shenanigans end up in the media, and we trot out a hypothetical and teeny tiny band-aid that we can point to so we can say we're responding to them without lying but without actually making any real changes. Oh, we haven't actually done anything. That band-aid is a promise we won't be obligated to keep and we hope that when we don't keep it no one will be paying attention anymore. As a reminder, Verizon never shares customer information with third parties as part of our advertising programs, because they can figure that part out by themselves."
It's not 100% clear we can chalk this exception up to careless typing: "in any article related to the running of the county". What about articles not related to the running of the county? Still no 1st amendment there?
Pro-tip: the best stories are based on fact, not "I'd wager that ...".
You may disagree with the guy's strategy, but who's being insulting by saying he's insulting and business-dumb, especially when there's a horde of 6 of your readers who already disagree with you? The savvy gamers you're worried about will see a developer trying to do the right thing and realize that they can *still* buy the game if they want. Who's insulted by that? Perhaps he's had this happen before and didn't enjoy dealing with the aftermath. You don't know because you didn't ask.
P.S. I tried to reply to every comment here with "Ditto" because so far, I agree with every one of them, and wanted to make the meta point that I think so many people will disagree with you that I'd agree with all the ones to follow. (The logic's not so tortured in my head...) Looks like my "ditto" spam will get moderated into the waste bin, though.
I dont' disagree with the substance of this post, but the tone is a bit entitled sounding. Does the author somehow think sites have a *duty* to provide a comment section?
Phrases like "cheap and lazy", "grown tired", "admitting that they're not invested enough" suggest that not having comments is in and of itself some egregious transgression.
Allowing comments may be a positive thing in general, it may have benefits for the community, and a site may face general decline in readers if it doesn't have one, but if a site chooses not to allow comments, especially because moderating them has become too much of a burden, then that's not evil, is it?
Presenting that as "elevating" the conversation is disingenuous crap, but that's a separate issue. The outrage here seems directed at the notion of removing comments, not the notion of whitewashing the decision.
Suppose they pick 10% of the people at random. That means they are selecting 10% * 0.69% = 0.069% of the people. So there's a 99.931% chance of not being selected. If there is one terrorist out of 1.7M *every day*, it will take 1005 days (2.75 years) of random testing before it even becomes more likely than not that the terrorist is caught. It would take 4343 days before you have a 95% chance of catching the terrorist on just one of those days.
This isn't about security. It's about allowing your PR team to *say* you are taking a "proactive, protective measure" without *actually* lying while saying it.