We log only access attempts to our servers (for security and troubleshooting), user session durations and the bandwidth used (for purposes of providing detailed information intended solely for each concrete user) and user clicks made to our software (to track popularity and assist in application and service improvements). [...]
In case users are suspected of activities, which are declared illegal by the laws of countries where the local VPN Unlimited servers are hosted, we may log information,[...]
Hats off to the founders of Tidal for cutting out the 'creative' publishers who seem to help themselves to the Lion's share of music revenue for the service of copying .mp3-files from a master CD to various online platforms. Way to go, Jay-Z!
Regarding the 'free' music, pictures on the internet suggest that it pays enough Jay-Z to afford decent suits. Is there any information about recent earnings of Tidal's founders? Memory suggests that they have all been doing rather well recently.
Is there any truth in rumors that a certain justices car has been seen suspiciously close to areas where drug dealing is taking place? That his bank account and credit cards may have been used for money laundering? Perhaps his access to his car & money should be restricted until he can prove his innocence? Just to be on the safe side, no accusation of wrongdoing implied.
I was inspired not by Bob or the original tenant, but by an internet blog. In the absence of any contract with Windermere Cay's, I should be safe to post my opinion about Windermere Cay's, and any photographic impressions I may associate with that honorable society.
It is not those AGAINST The Idea that Just Want Everything 'Free Of Charge, Free Of Responsibility', it those FOR it.
Secret services. police. publishers. media organizations. All of them want data retention. All of them promise the blue sky if they get it - no more terrorists, children will be safe, creative people will finally be able to pay for their own coffee. Hurrah.
Pay for it? Nah, the infrastructure has to be paid for by someone else. Every Australian has to pay 24 dollars every year for benefit of being spied upon. Accountability? Operate in the dark, lie, cheat and wiggle out of any enquiry, and envoke 'national security' if all else fails. Or change a law retroactively to avoid prosecution.
And the benefits? Data retention has been around for a long time in some countries. Crime rates? Unaffected. Terrorists? Don't seem to be impressed. And child abuse? Well, while GCHQ and Scotland Yard and all the other 'security agencies' were busy filming and monitoring everything that anybody does in Britain, the real criminals conducted what David Cameron described as 'sex abuse on 'industrial scale'. Thousands of children being abused in real life while the people paid to protect them sit in dark basements and stare at computer screens.
So, when the Australian police wants their citizens to shell out $24 per year for their ISPs to collect data, it is the perfect time to be greedy and tell them to get back on the streets and chase real criminals. If the French had told that to their police, the journalists murdered in Paris recently might still be alive.
... be related to 'Turkish military says MIT shipped weapons to al-Qaeda' (MIT being the Turkish national intelligence agency)? With Google turning up 165000 hits on this, the censor might just be a bit late.
Are there any incentives in the bill to encourage copyright holders to provide legal access? A report released by KPMG and praised by the MPAA finds that 'UK Users Need 27 Services to Get Most Popular Films'. Judging by media reports, the situation is not really better in Australia.
... honest public servants need such protection? They have nothing to hide. The law makes sure that the rotten apples can stay in the police force and continue to break the law with no accountability at all.
So why are there only few complaints? A report 'Bundesnetzagentur', the German FCC, on traffic management by European network providers sheds some light on this: The providers are allowed to keep all information on throttling and deep packet inspection as 'commercial secrets' - can't have customers know about it and complain ... (https://netzpolitik.org/2014/studie-der-bundesnetzagentur-netzneutralitaet-wird-in-ganz-europa-v erletzt-provider-verweigern-auskunft-zu-details/ in German, the pictures show how large parts of provider statements have been blackened out before publication). To be clear: It is the providers that do the censoring, but the watchdog that expressively allows them to withhold the information from the customers.