I don't use ANY tv or cable providers. That makes it easy. All I want is internet access. I can get either / both cable internet or at&t internet. AT&T can offer me fiber.
The problem I see down the road is that both the Cable provider and AT&T have their own "content". If I wanted crap content I would still have cable TV and a TiVo.
Content and internet access need to be completely separate. The same company should not be allowed to provide both. Or alternately, (network neutrality) the internet provider should not be allowed to favor its own content over other content providers, like Netflix / Hulu / HBO / Starz / etc, etc.
> Android gives you freedom, but gives every app the freedom to collect your personal information.
An Android app can only do what it has permissions to do. In order to have a certain permission, for example, to look at your contacts (eg, phone / address book), the app must: 1. expressly declare the permission it wants (otherwise the OS rejects attempts to use this part of the API) 2. declare whether it wants the permission granted at install time or upon first use of that feature 3. The user must expressly grant permission ("yes, I want to give application SpamMyFriends access to my contacts list").
The user is asked to grant that permission either when the app is installed, or the first time the app attempts to use that permission.
So yes, on Android, an app can compromise your privacy, if you want to give it permission to.
On the newest releases of Android you can revoke these permissions later. For example, a flashlight app that uses the camera's flash LED as a light. No reasonable flashlight app should need: * access to my contacts list * ability to record sounds * ability to prevent phone from sleeping * access to your files, music, photos, etc. * internet access
If you are NOT already signed up with an RIAA member record label, then DO NOT sign up.
Get your music online. iTunes. Amazon Digital Music. Etc.
Get your music played on radio-like internet streaming services.
Find other ways to promote yourself. It would take some work. But you don't have the RIAA in the middle screwing both you and your fans. And then the horrors of "collection societies" to use a euphemism for extortion. It has been done before with success.
The beauty of Amazon, for example, is that I can easily and inexpensively purchase and download DRM-free mp3's. Put them on every current device I own. And every future device I will ever own. The audio engineering is good. Uniform volume across tracks. And I feel like I actually purchased something. It cannot disappear like Plays For Sure, or Zune, or any other DRM system.
We live in an age where the physical media is less and less important. This above all else is what makes the future of the RIAA irrelevant. Who needs record labels when you don't need physical records to put the labels on to.
What if Google stopped responding to DMCA takedown requests as well?
After all, Google doesn't host the content. It merely provides the link to it's location. That location is the proper target of the DMCA takedown.
Maybe Google's reaction is also triggered by the increasing talk about mere linking being somehow illegal. If you don't like what is linked to, then take the linked site down and all of the links are instantly useless. Even the links you don't know about, like other search engines or blog postings, or anywhere else.
these same folks suddenly lavishing praise on whistleblowers now because it's tactically convenient, will be back arguing for assassination by drone strike the moment the next whistleblower reveals truths they'd prefer remain hidden.
Given how this article points out that Stingrays are everywhere, even for sale on foreign web sites, I would say that may validate my hypothesis (reproduced below). Basically, the secret hack has escaped. The vulnerability in the design of the cellular networks cannot be easily, cheaply nor quickly fixed.
Hypothesis about Stingray secrecy
(previously posted to TD)
Law enforcement is extremely secretive about Stingray. Why? Their suppliers even require them to sign agreements with extreme conditions. Why?
The wireless network standards were designed when we were still using Windows 3.1.
The designers may have considered security, in some sense, but not in a way that can withstand 21st century attacks. The security may be in large part due to obscurity.
Stingray is not authorized by the mobile network operators who have not given Stingray any SIMs (subscriber identity module) or other cryptographic keys necessary to access the network. Those network operators have exclusive rights to spectrum which Stingray is subverting.
Stingray works by compromising the security of the network. Effectively a genuine hack or intrusion into the network.
There may be no effective fix short of redesigning the network.
If the mechanism of the hack were generally known, mass chaos could ensue.
The network operators are strongly against this but powerless to do anything about it, other than potentially litigate.
The secrecy of Stingray is largely due to several factors such as:
A. If the mechanism of the attack became generally known, there could be vast numbers of unauthorized "stingrays" compromising everyone's privacy -- including (OMG!) rich and powerful people!
B. It would be possible for a network of distributed "stingray" clones to disrupt mobile network service by tricking nearby phones to connect to fake networks. What if this were deliberately done during an emergency?
C. The creators / operators of genuine(tm) Stingray devices don't want to be exposed to the potential of litigation for actionable things that Stingray may be doing as part of its operation. Including disrupting networks, stolen proprietary or trade secret information, having compromised individuals into divulging network secrets, keys, etc.
This hypothesis would explain observed evidence about why those who built Stingray want desperately to keep it secret. Please consider. The secrecy is so important, that it leads to:
Dismissing or disposing of prosecutions rather than reveal any information about Stingray.
Binding agencies and organizations using Stringray to high levels of secrecy, including keeping THE VERY EXISTENCE of Stingray a secret.
Outright Brazen Perjury a.k.a. Parallel Construction, which is a euphemism for conspiracy to lie to the court and the defense, concealing discoverable information.
The behavior of those behind Stingray fits this hypothesis. They want to use it "for truth, justice and the corporate way", but are desperately fearful of the secret hack escaping.