I don't think the answer to everything we are annoyed at should be more government regulation, especially in this case.
If the cons of deving for Apple's app store outweigh the pros, then people will stop submitting to the app store. Simple as that. If people want apps that they can't get on iOS more than they want iOS, they'll move to a different platform.
But I don't think we should be all "Oh, Apple didn't allow an app I want. GOVERNMENT, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THIS APP SO REGULATE THIS". Just get a different phone.
If it's a few huge multinationals vs. individuals it's not so easy 'to just get another phone'.
Isn't society/government here to provide general regulations? Ok, some are stupid but (at least in Europe) many are reasonably good. And e.g. protect a consumer where you also could have said 'his problem, he made a mistake'. Or regulations about people's health where you could e.g. say, oh, why does he/she eat that many burgers?
Why should a government not take care that app/content can flow down to consumers freely?
Is hardware hacking really required? My S3 ran the risk of losing its IMEI when I was messing around with custom ROMs, but before a solution was found, people put up guides on how to change the IMEI with software and it looked easy.
Some time ago, I cloned the ESN of my SPH-A680 onto an identical model (using QPST). When they were both on and next to one another, calling me made them both ring, and simultaneously answering both let me hear audio out of both.
I doubt basebands have really changed - it's a culture of security through obscurity, with people unaware of the details assuming they actually provide their purported security guarantees.
I'd have a hard problem going to every single website where I ever made an account and changing the email preferences.. Assuming I'm a normal human being, there are bound to be sites that I forget about and someone dedicated enough could then get access to my accounts on those sites.
Not a security risk I'm willing to take, when I could simply leave that email address dormant. There's not really a huge shortage of good email addresses if you're willing to pay $10 a year for your own domain.
>It's also important to note that the NSA currently has the support of the people and the people's representatives. If 80% of the country hated the law that allows blanket collection of business records then it would have been changed long ago.
That's ingenious. We didn't know about these secret courts. We didn't know the extent to which we were being spied on. The extent to which laws were being manipulated. Obama's administration even claimed that their interpretation of these laws and therefore what they could do with them were too vital to national security to let us know!
Congress wouldn't have had hearings where Keith Alexander had to explain and defend what he was doing if we already knew what he was doing. These wiretap laws also run contrary to an older Supreme Court ruling. You know how the government got around that? Bush's administration claimed that Congress told him to use military power and he considered the NSA a military force so they could ignore the Supreme Court ruling. The FBI did the same. These are twisted versions of laws we allowed that we weren't even allowed to know about. Fuck secret interpretations of laws.
The Palmer raids in the early 1900s arrested more than 10,000 people. Of that, 3,500 of them were held indefinitely. Almost all of them were innocent people.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, 1,200 Muslims were arrested. Some were beaten (this is according to the Justice Department's own Inspector General of the time). Hundreds were held for months. Absolutely none of them were found to be with al-Qaeda.
These are just two examples of MANY. You know what's scary? The spying that the NSA, FBI, and CIA do gets people put on lists. There are lists of people to arrest in the event of an attack. Hoover of the FBI had something like 70,000 people on a list during the era of Communism fear. The vast majority of those people were innocent of any crime.
Over the past century, these lists have been kept openly and kept secretly when different administrations denounced them. But they have been kept (at the FBI at least. Hoover hid them illegally). Letting the NSA spy on us and treating us as if we were assumed criminals before innocent is a terrible way to waste away your fundamental rights.
And the scary thing is we wouldn't even have known that we were being spied on for sure unless Snowden said something.
These are crimes against the American people. You can't tell me that the FISA court not rejecting any warrants is a good thing. Out of tens of thousands of requests, not one gets rejected? That is a failure of the checks and balance system our founding fathers set up. THAT is definitely a crime against the American people.
And because of how fucked-up the system is, when they come to pick you up, any number of minor things during that encounter ("Fuck you pig, where's the warrant?", running, etc.) can escalate into resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, or assaulting an officer, and then magically you're in the system "for real" and screwed.
You are free to talk shit to anyone you want in a bar; you are also free to get your ass kicked.
Antagonizing a cop just to be a dick will probably result in those minor charges he would have ignored if you were nice, getting written up with a smile on his face. That's 100% your fault in that case.
Reread what I said above...If you are being a dick because you want to "stick it to the man", well expect the man to stick it back to you and write you up for those petty offenses he would have otherwise ignored.
Problem there is often times people have recieved BS citations for "disturbing the peace" or other nonsense citations which plainly don't apply (i.e. because contempt of cop isn't a crime), but still result in court time and hassle for the accused.
I use the hyperbolic case because it should still be allowed--even a kinder "I'm sorry, but I can't leave with you until you've got a warrant" can trigger a "Are you resisting? taze taze taze" event, as we've seen elsewhere. There is no assurance, no safety net, no hope in the system for common sense--and that's before you even take into account informal departmental policies (HPD: "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.", Denver PD: "We get up early to beat the crowds").
>There are safeguards in place unless I'm mistaken (looking at you Internal Affairs).
Yes, I recall the NSA and other government agencies having such self-policing groups.
Tell me, do you really in your heart of hearts think a corrupt organization (say a police dept in a specific place.. if pressed for an example, say Maricopa County in Arizona?) has a functioning IA group?
The federal government has an IA group too. Many of them. I'm sure that if Snowden had raised his concerns with them, they would have gladly worked with him to solve those problems.......
Look, there are enough laws and regulations on the books that you can get written up (legally, strictly speaking) for almost anything. Then, it is up to you how far you wish to assert your innocence--the DA will offer to plea you out again and again, and if you make it to court they will then try to make an example out of you, using whatever tricks suit them (all legal, mind you!). There is plenty of evidence and coverage of this happening, so don't pretend it is unreasonable to fear.
That all said, going back to the very first interaction--you and the cop--we see that it becomes purely a decision on the cop's part whether or not you are going to be sent down into the machine.
Justice should not be so arbitrary, but here in the US it oftentimes is; don't pretend otherwise.
As for safeguards...the state can deprive you of years of freedom and set you free afterwards with an "oops". That's bullshit, even if the safeguards finally kick in. And if you end up with "resisting arrest" or just antagonizing the system or embarassing a DA, those safeguards seem to magically fail.