I just read that Google is stepping in to offer users $150 in a check card. I hate those sorts of "refunds" but they are waling away with a better deal in the end which can be used to buy the data service or anything else (like an iPad or new Google S Tab-thing, whatever they call it).
Verizon sucks, Google did the right thing. Maybe they'll know better to partner w/ VZW the next time.
I'm a huge Apple fan and have looked past some of the weirder things done. But I agree, this is going to make them less secure. Who want's to risk their license to promote a platform with apps if they risk losing their hard work. I'd like to see Apple reinstate this guy's license (or change the license such that there is a documented process for exposing security bugs - which might exist and I'm just unfamiliar with).
I do want to ask the security community a question, though. How fast does a large corporation have to respond to a security issue before going public? Is one month a realistic timeframe when there are development cycles that can't always to respond to the countless number of submissions by the community? Google, Microsoft, Apple and others aren't immune to the volume of requests that come in on any given day.
I'm not sure one month is enough and while it's good that the issue was discussed in publich without detailing the flaw exactly, do people have to be so trigger happy with disclosure when, as a security analysist, he's said it's a pretty obscure bug. Dangerous... but very obscure.
What if a three strikes rule (I almost shudder at saying such a thing in these forums when its such a hot topic in other circles) is a way to compromise on disclosure? Can security researchers agree that if after a third time following up with a vendor on software defects - with one month span in between emails - they go public?
It just seems to have disjoined responses by different security researchers on these types of bugs. Otherwise, Apple et al are left putting out fires in their development cycle and disrupting change on the threat someone doesn't think they move fast enough (which, again, could be different from person to person).
I find this very dangerous. Take Groupon, for example. Critics are coming out everywhere to say their business isn't sustainable. It's ponzi scheme, they claim.
Not having looked into their finaincials myself, I'm led to believe there could be some questions around their business model. But it's funny (and dangerous) that Groupon has spawned so many competitors. And they've each raised a sizable amount of money.
I feel investors are more scared of missing out on an opportunity than understanding the fundamentals. The key that I've always had in my personal life is if I don't understand how they make their money... don't risk yours (mine... whatever).
People then talk of bubbles... the social discount bubble will burst or the social apartment lending will burst (especaillly when cities like NYC make it illegal to sublet like that). But I see it as the free market doing this thing. But the free market isn't always smart and I see this as another risky bet.
When ever someone drags in kids into political arguments, I'm always reminded of The Simpsons character, Helen Lovejoy who cries out when something bad is happening in town - no matter how small or profound.
She's the parody of these types of arguments and, because I always think of those clips, I immediately discount whatever is said "for the children".
Looks like he did settle for the misdemeanor: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/ex-nsa-manager-has-reportedly-twice-rejected-plea-bargains-in-espionage-act-case/2011/06/09/AG89ZHNH_story.html
The mob has been shaking down people for years and it seems to work well for them. Granted, they have other business models like selling contraband or whatever. But extortion works and was a classic product they offered (protection services) for decades.
Google has, and (for the foreseeable future) will be, a rogue site. From it's quick ascension into search and ad dominance, deep crawling, data mining, and software (Gmail, Docs, Books, Music, etc). It will always be considered a site outside the law or some societal norm... to someone.
From news, to music, & software - someone is always going to hate Google and call them rogue no matter what the law really says. Even if someone passed a law that said Google and everything it does is completely legal, someone will want to block or stop it.
Remember, people cry piracy when their business models fail.
And Ballmer isn't a great CEO - which others have noted.
But the real issue is this: when you make a bad product, treat your customers poorly, don't adapt to different markets/consumers/customers in a way that the free market expects, you're bound to suffer.
That's the bottom line.
Make a better product, react to the market faster, & don't disrespect your customer base (and assume they're all criminals) and you might win some business back - even if its in a new form.
I know it sucks that employees who want to use their work equipment for personal use might find it no longer possible - by filters or by policy enforcement.
But it's not going to be long when this doesn't matter. Smartphones and 3G connected netbooks and tablets are going to render this moot in a year or so. True, it's an extra expense for the employee. But if it means you can do just about whatever you want on your own equipment and save you the risk of an employer snooping into your affairs, why wouldn't you?
The fact of the matter remains that if you don't like the policies, don't work at a place that has them. It sucks, yes. But do what I do... use my iPhone and iPad to do my email. Hooking up a wireless keyboard to them (like many other phones and tablets can do) makes it almost like your desktop without any employer able to claim misuse of company property or network.
Just only do that sort of thing if you're getting your work done.
I'm an Apple fan so take what I'll say with a grain of salt but...
At least Apple addressed the "controversy" with a statement. Google doesn't say what it tracks and in these pages, we've discussed the weird tracking data they've obtained "by accident" or through questionable ways.
And, for what it's worth... they outlined what they're changing to address the concerns out there. Considering Apple has been more opt in than opt out, I'm siding with them on this.
They aren't evil and they don't have Google's obsession with ads but they would use this data if it served their purpose, I'm sure. And there is spin in the PR that raised a few more questions than it answered. But it's nowhere near as bad as their competitors.