Zero rating also is seeing support from companies that historically supported net neutrality (Google, Netflix) because these companies are benefiting from the additional traffic and ad eyeballs these programs send their direction.
The other benefit these companies receive is blocking competition. Buy paying a, probably small, or at least by these companies standards relatively small, amount of money to the ISP, they can block their start-up and other small competitors from competing with them because the small competitors can't afford to be zero-rated. And best of all, it's not GOOGLE's or NETFLIX's fault that start-ups can't compete, can't afford to be zero-rated, oh no, they can point the finger at the ISPs. it's the ISPs fault for having zero-rating.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased newspaper with other people. What's next?
Well, I guess you can substitute anything else that currently has some sort of control on it's poseession and/or use:
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased firearms with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased explosives with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased drugs with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased smallpox virus with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased plutonium with other people.
So banning sharing newspapers isn't the thin end of the wedge, the precedent for banning other things later. Governments have been banning (or restricting via requiring licenses/permits) the sharing of things for, well, forever.
One of the elements to this case by the FBI is that performing this work is not overly burdensome on Apple, because writing code is something apple already does, it has the staff and technical expertise in place to do the compelled work.
However, if Apple has to hire new employees to do this work, wouldn't that demolish that argument? The mere fact that they would have to hire new staff would counter the "already in place staff and skills" aspect of the argument at the very least.
And if Apple has to start firing highly-skilled engineers, with decades of experience, or engage in litigation of those same engineers to force them to honour their contracts and do that work, again, burdensome?
And what does it do with that tracking data? Upload it via unsecure http to the vendor's website for onsale to advertisers and availability (since it's now a business record) for government requests for users surfing habits?
But doesn't that only matter if you are on autopilot? If you are in manual flight mode, what relevance does the sat nav system have if you are not navigating by it?
I can see it mattering if you are on autopilot, because in autopilot you've said "navigate to point X (or waypoints X, Y, Z, etc.) as provided by the SatNav". So if you change the SatNav remotely to change where point X is, I can see the autopilot taking you to a place you weren't expecting.
But if you turn off the autpilot and use another navigation method to determine what course to manually steer the plane in (either a portable SatNav, or visual navigation using a map, ruler, compass, visual waypoints, or just "hey, I see a mountain over there, I'll just fly into it"), then does it matter if they override the SatNav?