After all if they have nothing to hide then what would the issue be? A "concerned citizen" could start a liberties protection group and make certain that school boards across the country stop stifling free speech, wasting money, taking corruption, and start acting swiftly and quickly according to a set of iron-clad rules and standards in line with their state's constitution. How'd they like that kind of scrutiny.
I personally really appreciate you following these kinds of articles, Mr. Masnick. It affects the freedoms of privacy and 1st amendment rights on the internet so deeply when cases like this go wrong and become precedent in that state. This gives people an opportunity to reflect some scrutiny back to these "duly incorporated school boards or entities" and really give them a wake up call that despite all their normal powers... they can't fight the citizen tired of being stepped on and crushed by bureaucracies (which is all a school board really is) when we speak out against something that these "people" hold dear and fast (like their salaries and prestige).
That's exactly right and I am quite sure that is exactly what they are doing. And the logic is sound! As phones move more into the IT arena and other phones become capable of downloading customized applications the questions that arise where the requirements of two worlds (FTC for software and FCC for wireless spectrum use) collide become apparent. It's fair for the FCC to start asking questions now as we will all have to answer them later. Software has been basically required to be open for sometime. Closed application systems never make it. This goes doubly so for Europe (except when made by any EU government or are any company "in" with the EU commission).
Is it really going to take a determination by a Supreme Court or some other drastic action to force governments of any size to respect people's right to privacy when it comes to the internet?
[b]"However, those requirements can be waived by the President and those he authorizes to do so. Using that process, I've read that they're basically handing out security clearances like candy"[/b]
I have never heard of this power being given to the President. 5 U.S.C. 552.b(1) which provides further reasons why a FOIA request can be denied states that these matters which are exempt from the provisions shall be specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of National Defense or Foreign Policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order (and such delegates of course).
So no, even in there is only the statement that there has to be a criteria which can be established by Executive Order or be mandated to be classified by an Executive Order but under the current guiding EO there still must be an original classifying agency and a specific clearance definition provided. The only agency that is authorized to administer such clearances, again as delegated by EO that we all have access to is the Defense Security Services which handles all such clearance requests for many agencies that are not even defense related (Small Business Administration even... *blech!).
If there is such a waiver available to the President, it is not only not in the national interest to have such an ability granted to the chief executive (says me and everyone else who loves freedom and transparent government) but it is also an authority provided in some document which currently is eluding my copious grasp of the situation.
I look forward to being proved wrong so I can at least say that this broken system is, indeed, at least a system and not arbitrary rule.
Recently the 7th Appellate Court decided that certain determinations by the State Department though not subject to judicial review (as in this case) were still subject to being transparent in their ways and means in creating the material statement (in this case that these negotiations are in fact secret to some level). The court stated that: "A designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer...is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian régimes. Government must operate through public laws and regulations."
Now, the issue isn't that they don't have the authority, but that they cannot simply wave about EO 12958 and state that its subject to its security classifications. No, there is a due process to this and an original classifying agency that must make the determination. Also the determination has no room for non-defined terms. The terms are very clearly defined in EO 12958 and yet in any release so far from (previously) the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration is "get off our backs, we have Presidential Authority". Well big deal, your power comes from me, the citizen and I am asking for due process and transparency. Who the hell do they think they are?
Plus are they saying that industry insiders and PACs have some sort of official "clearance" to receive this information and debate it with them??? I think not, and again that would have to be transparent in its ways and means to the public. Hell they can't even fully claim that this is purely a "foreign relations matter" subject to arbitrary classification since the Treaty will likely affect U.S. Law. You could drive a truck through this... come on!!
They never should have dropped that suit. A very unwilling plaintiff or a very bad and lazy lawyer was at fault for dropping this. Shameful.
This article and its questions assume that the direct revenue stream cost some sort of money on the part of Apple and that its a cost that needs to be reimbursed through gangbuster sales. Other companies that are looking to App Stores to make money for them would be overlooking that the very business model the App Store that Apple developed is based in is only to make incidental software sales for the company while providing the customer with a very attractive reason to buy its hardware.
This isn't rocket science business models at work here. Apple provides the forum for the distribution of the downloads. They don't provide the bandwidth or carry a large overhead for validating the software that is carried in the store. They take a small percentage to cover their overhead and the user and the app-makers who hit it big get the lion's share of the benefit. Meanwhile Apple sells more hardware because their hardware is more useful than other people's hardware because of this store.
Having a direct revenue stream from the store to create mainline profits for the company was never the intent and this article misses that point or at least fails to ask that as the real question.
To answer the question directly then the answer is simply "no of course it will not slow down app developments on the app store as it makes no difference to them."
I've been thinking about this for a long, long time... finally I think the time has come to institute a new change in American politics. What I am proposing is that any law maker who puts forth a bill that is clearly unconstitutional (State or Federal) be forced to appear before a Judge in a special court to be tried for a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rights and privileges of natural citizens of that state or even Federation for the actual USG.
If found guilty that law maker should be debarred from ever serving the people of that state or the Federal government ever again. Because it's one thing to repeatedly propose a law and failing, that's just stupid. But to propose it repeatedly after its been found unconstitutional is practically treason.
FYI, we could also propose the same system be enacted for Agencies of the Federal government so much so that if they propose a law that infringes or impedes the people's natural rights under the Constitution that they too are held accountable and reviewable by proper check and balance which is actually engaged in the law making process (i.e. the courts) and is held accountable.
The songs are better quality and free of the initial DRM constraints. Without Apple's work to bring digital music to the fair market there would be no legal digital download service still. They stood up to the RIAA to make iTunes happen and though I sympathize, you anti-DRM fanatics stopped looking at reality at the same time as the RIAA. Apple built a structure that the companies were forced to live with in hopes to reduce illegal downloads.
Now that the market has taken off and everyone is a little more secure with the concept of digital music files they need to charge more to get rid of the DRM in order to stay in compliance with their contracts that allow them access to the music libraries that they currently have. There's nothing unsavory about this at all. It makes total sense and I appreciate everything they've done to make this industry happen including this.
I hated this guy when I worked with the FCC in my previous regulatory career. I am so glad to hear him finally getting some scrutiny. To be fair Congress could use some condemnation (along with Al Gore) for allowing the system to be set up this way. Martin was a serious jerk though... arrogant as hell. Glad to see him getting it.
The "article" quoted in Post #9 is not an article at all but is also a blog on the Wired network of blogs. The report of 30% profits is unsubstantiated and it even states that right there in the written text. So, only point that I have is that if you are going to be self-righteous and antagonistic about doing research, then you might want to consider taking a remedial comprehensive reading course first.
"It's much easier to grow marijuana than it is to brew beer and I have no idea how liquor is created but I'd assume, still tougher than growing a marijuana plant."
LOL. Apparently you have never 1. used a Mr. Beer and 2. never tried to grow a pot plant to bear fruit.
Marijuana laws enforcement is a grand waste of time the world over. People complain about the wars taking up cash and resources and slashing rights?? We set the stage with allowing the "drug war" to go forward like this. I wish people could just get over the fact that some people like to smoke a plant.
This is what happens when the world lets one country get away with it without any repurcussions at all. The corporations and the politicians support China's efforts by their very lack of initiative in doing anything at all or taking a hard stance. Now Russia will do it and sure, maybe there will indeed be more to follow. Frightening.
One thing can make Universities and other corporations wake up to a rule like that... sue them for damages related to stress and inappropriate behaviors for taking punitive steps for accessing information placed inadvertently into the public domain. Recent rulings in my field (ITAR and National Security Compliance) have deemed that when a company does either deliberately or inadvertently place information into the public domain (which for this purpose includes net access) then they are held firmly liable for all consequences.
Even logically the University's policy is wholly inappropriate.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by coolridge.
Investigate all school boards!
After all if they have nothing to hide then what would the issue be? A "concerned citizen" could start a liberties protection group and make certain that school boards across the country stop stifling free speech, wasting money, taking corruption, and start acting swiftly and quickly according to a set of iron-clad rules and standards in line with their state's constitution. How'd they like that kind of scrutiny.
I personally really appreciate you following these kinds of articles, Mr. Masnick. It affects the freedoms of privacy and 1st amendment rights on the internet so deeply when cases like this go wrong and become precedent in that state. This gives people an opportunity to reflect some scrutiny back to these "duly incorporated school boards or entities" and really give them a wake up call that despite all their normal powers... they can't fight the citizen tired of being stepped on and crushed by bureaucracies (which is all a school board really is) when we speak out against something that these "people" hold dear and fast (like their salaries and prestige).
Re:
That's exactly right and I am quite sure that is exactly what they are doing. And the logic is sound! As phones move more into the IT arena and other phones become capable of downloading customized applications the questions that arise where the requirements of two worlds (FTC for software and FCC for wireless spectrum use) collide become apparent. It's fair for the FCC to start asking questions now as we will all have to answer them later. Software has been basically required to be open for sometime. Closed application systems never make it. This goes doubly so for Europe (except when made by any EU government or are any company "in" with the EU commission).
*sigh
Is it really going to take a determination by a Supreme Court or some other drastic action to force governments of any size to respect people's right to privacy when it comes to the internet?
Re: Re: Secrets
[b]"However, those requirements can be waived by the President and those he authorizes to do so. Using that process, I've read that they're basically handing out security clearances like candy"[/b] I have never heard of this power being given to the President. 5 U.S.C. 552.b(1) which provides further reasons why a FOIA request can be denied states that these matters which are exempt from the provisions shall be specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of National Defense or Foreign Policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order (and such delegates of course). So no, even in there is only the statement that there has to be a criteria which can be established by Executive Order or be mandated to be classified by an Executive Order but under the current guiding EO there still must be an original classifying agency and a specific clearance definition provided. The only agency that is authorized to administer such clearances, again as delegated by EO that we all have access to is the Defense Security Services which handles all such clearance requests for many agencies that are not even defense related (Small Business Administration even... *blech!). If there is such a waiver available to the President, it is not only not in the national interest to have such an ability granted to the chief executive (says me and everyone else who loves freedom and transparent government) but it is also an authority provided in some document which currently is eluding my copious grasp of the situation. I look forward to being proved wrong so I can at least say that this broken system is, indeed, at least a system and not arbitrary rule.
They should keep fighting
Recently the 7th Appellate Court decided that certain determinations by the State Department though not subject to judicial review (as in this case) were still subject to being transparent in their ways and means in creating the material statement (in this case that these negotiations are in fact secret to some level). The court stated that: "A designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer...is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian régimes. Government must operate through public laws and regulations."
Now, the issue isn't that they don't have the authority, but that they cannot simply wave about EO 12958 and state that its subject to its security classifications. No, there is a due process to this and an original classifying agency that must make the determination. Also the determination has no room for non-defined terms. The terms are very clearly defined in EO 12958 and yet in any release so far from (previously) the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration is "get off our backs, we have Presidential Authority". Well big deal, your power comes from me, the citizen and I am asking for due process and transparency. Who the hell do they think they are?
Plus are they saying that industry insiders and PACs have some sort of official "clearance" to receive this information and debate it with them??? I think not, and again that would have to be transparent in its ways and means to the public. Hell they can't even fully claim that this is purely a "foreign relations matter" subject to arbitrary classification since the Treaty will likely affect U.S. Law. You could drive a truck through this... come on!!
They never should have dropped that suit. A very unwilling plaintiff or a very bad and lazy lawyer was at fault for dropping this. Shameful.
Over-simplified
This article and its questions assume that the direct revenue stream cost some sort of money on the part of Apple and that its a cost that needs to be reimbursed through gangbuster sales. Other companies that are looking to App Stores to make money for them would be overlooking that the very business model the App Store that Apple developed is based in is only to make incidental software sales for the company while providing the customer with a very attractive reason to buy its hardware.
This isn't rocket science business models at work here. Apple provides the forum for the distribution of the downloads. They don't provide the bandwidth or carry a large overhead for validating the software that is carried in the store. They take a small percentage to cover their overhead and the user and the app-makers who hit it big get the lion's share of the benefit. Meanwhile Apple sells more hardware because their hardware is more useful than other people's hardware because of this store.
Having a direct revenue stream from the store to create mainline profits for the company was never the intent and this article misses that point or at least fails to ask that as the real question.
To answer the question directly then the answer is simply "no of course it will not slow down app developments on the app store as it makes no difference to them."
It's time
I've been thinking about this for a long, long time... finally I think the time has come to institute a new change in American politics. What I am proposing is that any law maker who puts forth a bill that is clearly unconstitutional (State or Federal) be forced to appear before a Judge in a special court to be tried for a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rights and privileges of natural citizens of that state or even Federation for the actual USG.
If found guilty that law maker should be debarred from ever serving the people of that state or the Federal government ever again. Because it's one thing to repeatedly propose a law and failing, that's just stupid. But to propose it repeatedly after its been found unconstitutional is practically treason.
FYI, we could also propose the same system be enacted for Agencies of the Federal government so much so that if they propose a law that infringes or impedes the people's natural rights under the Constitution that they too are held accountable and reviewable by proper check and balance which is actually engaged in the law making process (i.e. the courts) and is held accountable.
Not a big deal
The songs are better quality and free of the initial DRM constraints. Without Apple's work to bring digital music to the fair market there would be no legal digital download service still. They stood up to the RIAA to make iTunes happen and though I sympathize, you anti-DRM fanatics stopped looking at reality at the same time as the RIAA. Apple built a structure that the companies were forced to live with in hopes to reduce illegal downloads.
Now that the market has taken off and everyone is a little more secure with the concept of digital music files they need to charge more to get rid of the DRM in order to stay in compliance with their contracts that allow them access to the music libraries that they currently have. There's nothing unsavory about this at all. It makes total sense and I appreciate everything they've done to make this industry happen including this.
So glad to hear this
I hated this guy when I worked with the FCC in my previous regulatory career. I am so glad to hear him finally getting some scrutiny. To be fair Congress could use some condemnation (along with Al Gore) for allowing the system to be set up this way. Martin was a serious jerk though... arrogant as hell. Glad to see him getting it.
Re-Do Research
The "article" quoted in Post #9 is not an article at all but is also a blog on the Wired network of blogs. The report of 30% profits is unsubstantiated and it even states that right there in the written text. So, only point that I have is that if you are going to be self-righteous and antagonistic about doing research, then you might want to consider taking a remedial comprehensive reading course first.
easy than making beer?
"It's much easier to grow marijuana than it is to brew beer and I have no idea how liquor is created but I'd assume, still tougher than growing a marijuana plant."
LOL. Apparently you have never 1. used a Mr. Beer and 2. never tried to grow a pot plant to bear fruit.
It's harder than you'd think!
Wastes of Time
Marijuana laws enforcement is a grand waste of time the world over. People complain about the wars taking up cash and resources and slashing rights?? We set the stage with allowing the "drug war" to go forward like this. I wish people could just get over the fact that some people like to smoke a plant.
a bad lesson for the world
This is what happens when the world lets one country get away with it without any repurcussions at all. The corporations and the politicians support China's efforts by their very lack of initiative in doing anything at all or taking a hard stance. Now Russia will do it and sure, maybe there will indeed be more to follow. Frightening.
only one thing to do
One thing can make Universities and other corporations wake up to a rule like that... sue them for damages related to stress and inappropriate behaviors for taking punitive steps for accessing information placed inadvertently into the public domain. Recent rulings in my field (ITAR and National Security Compliance) have deemed that when a company does either deliberately or inadvertently place information into the public domain (which for this purpose includes net access) then they are held firmly liable for all consequences.
Even logically the University's policy is wholly inappropriate.