This is such an idiotic idea. Companies can put whatever they want in their terms of service. They'll be lucky if its flagrantly abused enough that the law is repealed. ("User agrees to tip us a minimum of $5 every month." "User agrees to let our CEO borrow their car whenever he's in town.")
If companies are at all savvy, they'll just start down a slippery slope towards achieving all their copyright and IP dreams in the form of cleverly worded and benign seeming restrictions. ("User agrees not to create derivative works for a period of two years after receiving their last software update." "User agrees that breaking DRM does irreparable harm to the company and agrees that treble damages, as calculated by us, are an adequate remedy.")
Don't conflate Trump with the things Trump supporters want. Trump was a disaster as a candidate, is a disaster as a pres-elect, and will be a disaster as a president. We are playing into his hand if we think we need to sugar-coat that in order to somehow win over his supporters. You can sugar coat your dislike of Trump all you want and you will not win over his supporters.
What may win over his non-fringe supporters (of which there are some) is substantive progress on real issues that have a real effect on people's lives.
My most favorable interpretation of this election is this: no one supported the person Trump is; they supported him because he was a Rorschach inkblot of indeterminate nothingness onto which they could project the things they wanted, and they were rebelling against a political system that no longer really represents the people.
Trump is probably the most distilled version of someone in public life who wantonly and proudly fails to consider his responses carefully. It is that exact quality, and very nearly only that quality, that made him electable. He has nothing else to offer.
That last part was an attempt at humor! ;) (The first three paragraphs were serious.)
You do make a good point though. We have arrived where we are today because the people don't demand a certain standard of competence out of our elected officials. If we did that, the media would more or less respond as needed. Too many people are willing to overlook various transgressions as long as the transgressor is espousing policies we like. The media, but more especially the people should seriously make a much bigger deal out of holding our representatives to higher standards -- across the board!
Cramer: "Your FCC license and the liberty that comes with your First Amendment rights are not a license to broadcast anything you want or in any way you choose."
Actually, that's exactly the point of the first amendment.
There are limitations (porn, obscenity, etc.) which might make his statement true in some technical sense, but the thing he wants to eliminate, bias, or more benignly "opinion", is exactly what the first amendment protects, in particular when it comes to politicians and the government.
Perhaps what we need is an agency that reviews what our representatives say to evaluate their understanding of our laws and constitution. Whey they demonstrate ignorance, they are required to attend remedial classes.
Mike, the behavior in the economics experiment you cite isn't ridiculous. It's only ridiculous because you refuse to learn what it demonstrates: that fairness is a social principle and people are willing to pay a cost to increase the chances that things are fair. You conclude by admitting you haven't or don't want to learn this, "I get that it happens, but it still confuses me to no end why anyone could possibly think it's a good result."
Ruckel went to extremes we might not agree with, especially as there were lower-cost ways (mentioned by you and others) to solve the problem, but this is not, "a weird attempt to insert a 'fairness standard' where it doesn't make any sense". Rather it is an attempt to insert a fairness standard where it makes total sense.
The only question here is a difference in opinion about about how much it's worth to enforce this standard. This may be an extreme case, so you may find a lot of people agree that they went to far. But that they were willing to pay a cost to achieve a principle is not ridiculous in itself.
Take another example of this, but non-economic. People in the US stand in orderly queues. Cutting in line is very much frowned upon. You are very likely to get confronted if you cut in line, perhaps even violently confronted. That's just the fairness principle: first come first served. The fairness principle helps avoid an outcome we've agreed as a society is worse: strongest come first served.
Other countries don't enforce queues to the extent the US does. They don't mind, and it doesn't devolve into brawls. I can hardly stand it myself, but natives don't seem to mind. It's a matter of degree.
FedEx may not even know what their customers are copying. They certainly aren't taking the content and then advertising "Hey Come to FedEx to get your Great Minds content". That would be profiting off the copyrighted material.
As others have stated, as it is, they are only making money off their copying service, completely independent of what content they are copying.
Fixing this imbalance of power would help with so many anti-consumer practices that we see every day.
Corporations can come up with any old "policy" they want and force us to do things their way because they have the leverage. We have few places (sometimes only one) where we can do business. If we choose to stop doing business with one because we don't like their policies (or prices or whatever), then we suffer a real loss. But if a business loses just one customer out of millions like this, they barely notice.
The government should be the entity that balances this playing field, since they could represent consumers en masse, but it doesn't work out that way.
The politician who figures out how to do this will change the world.
I don't think this is the same at all. No one is using their money to run down St. Jude's. They are using information about St. Jude's behavior. And they aren't directly costing St. Jude money. St. Jude doesn't have to directly spend money in response to this.
Their stock price may go down, and that can be viewed as a loss, but it's only a loss on paper in the near term. St. Jude could prevent any loss in stock price by behaving better. Even if their stock price fell to zero, they could still continue as a business in theory. For example, if their customers didn't walk away.
As @Uriel-238 and @ThatOneGuy already mentioned, this is just another smokescreen for "we wanted to search you". But it's so egregious it gives lie to the phrase "false positive". Seems like what they want here is "all positive" so that when all the results are kept secret, they can just trot out the positive results they like and say, see, it worked; this guy was a terrorist and our fancy software also said so.
It's just a plausibly-enough technical-sounding solution that politicians can plausibly pretend that it works because most people won't be able to evaluate why it doesn't.
As a last resort, we can "have a discussion" over it's efficacy.
This is the power of advertising. It makes you jump to all kinds of conclusions without a shred of data. The reactions to this image highlight it's power. Imagine the reactions if it had been a room full of Olympic athletes!
People may now be starting to become aware that they have opted in to a system in which they have traded control and privacy for convenience.
It is convenient for Apple/Microsoft/Android-device-makers to be able to automatically update software remotely, but the price is that those companies get to their fingers on your device at any/all times.
If you want security independent of some company like these, the ecosystem must be restructured. It's not a matter of Apple (or whoever) giving you better security; it's a matter of taking security out of Apple's hands.
The strongest link in the chain of data security is encryption. We don't know of a technology that is better at keeping things secret. So, the best security you have is when you have a "key"/password that will decrypt data. (And remember, your data is only secure because/when it is hard to guess or figure out the key.)
*Anything* else is a weaker link in the chain of security. So relying on features in an OS to protect you is weaker. Unless you and you alone have the key, you can't assume it is secure.
For Apple to be able to remotely install and update the OS means that any security features they implement can be circumvented, unless you can prevent that process using some form of encryption with your own key. Any other form of security will be weaker.
So, the strength of your Apply security is directly tied to the strength of Apple's backbone and the laws they/we confront.
The whole "conversation" gambit has a perverse and beautiful simplicity to it. You can use it whenever you're faced with resistance to a stand you are taking, and it makes you sound "reasonable": "I'm not the bad guy here. I just want to have a 'conversation' to figure out the right way to do this."
But it's a trap for the other side. As soon as they say anything that doesn't have the same facade of conciliation, then you can criticize them for being "extreme".
Further, you can always rehash old ground or backtrack in your argument by saying you just want to "continue" the "conversation".
All it really is, is a stalling and deflection tactic, allowing you to wait for another chance. When you hear someone use it, there's something slimy going on.
I picked up on the scare tactic Gaudino used, that Big Ag and Big Pharma would come do the patenting if the small players don't. I agree with Masnick about the ridiculousness of patents in this area and how they kill innovation, but this threat seems like a real risk. It's the system perpetuating the system. If you don't do it, someone else will and then you will be hosed. That's another of the perversities of the patent system.
It seems the push these days is to transform corporations -- which used to have to work within a country's governmental apparatus -- into extra-governmental entities that instead of adhering to a country's laws instead dictate those laws to them.
I do not want to live in the sovereign state of Big Business!