Class-action Carrier IQ suit targets Apple, HTC, Samsung, carriers & more - Page 2

Media in your iTunes library. Not all media in your iTunes Library is purchased from the iTunes Music Store.

The EULA limits the search to only media you have stored into your iTunes library regardless of how you obtained the media.

Thank you sir. Appreciated.

This isn't about some minor error. This is about the fundamental definition of a digital library and the iTunes app which has been in use for a decade.

I don't believe for a second that you are just now finding out that you can take content from outside the iTS (e.g.: Amazon, CDs) and store them in iTunes so you can sync them to your devices or play directly from within the app. The argument you could make was that iTunes only came on your radar after the iTS was established and even then you'd have to defend your position about not knowing about drag-and -drop importing, the menus that show importing, or ripping a CD to various formats and storing in iTunes.

Which has what to do with personal insults? It simply isn't necessary and doesn't reflect well on you. I've done perfectly well with avoiding them, as have many forum members. Trying to make others look lesser than you isn't admirable.

So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.

In this particular case you're completely mistaken on what I understood about iTunes. I don't buy music and I don't use iTunes. In fact I uninstalled it on my primary computer several weeks ago due to bloat. My son does use it, which is why I asked him about the library. Use that as your excuse for belittling others if you wish, and that's all I think it was. . . an excuse. I still won't respond in kind when you or others make a mistake or claim something that isn't true, yet still able communicate my point. No ad-homs, profanity or insults necessary.

It does require more thought and effort to answer rather than insult but makes the forums much more pleasant. It's worth a try.

I'd be all for throwing many of these malefactors in jail, but that's simply never going to happen, and there is not a single proposal for tort reform made, or ever likely to be made, on the floor of the U.S. Congress that includes such a provision. So, basically, what "tort reform" boils down to is simply stripping the risk out of causing injury.

The current system would be perfect for deterrence value if you actually did get mind boggling damages awarded and paid, even on rare occasions. But the simple fact is that doesn't really happen, despite all the propaganda* to the contrary to make you believe it does. Huge damage awards are actually quite rare, often reduced by judges, and even more frequently negotiated down to much smaller numbers that we never even hear about to settle, and/or paid over many, many years.

Juries don't, "pull a number out of their arses." The numbers are put before them and argued over, and then "12 people" decide, given the total circumstances of the case, what's just. People arguing for tort reform don't usually seem to have a problem with 12 people deciding capital murder cases, where a person's life is at stake. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they are unfit to decide a question of whether an injury occurred and what just damages ought to be. Surely a life is more important that a few million dollars, and most tort cases involve much smaller sums.

"Limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation," is nothing more than telling unscrupulous business people in advance exactly what the maximum cost of injuries from unsafe products, or unlawful acts will be, and basically, in most cases, giving them a free ride. It's the very unpredictability of the current system which is in fact its greatest strength.


* Yes, propaganda. A favorite whipping boy of tort reform advocates is medical malpractice lawsuits. These suits, which amount to, "untold millions in awards each year," so they argue, quite loosely with the facts, are driving health care costs through the roof and driving doctors out of practice. The truth is that it's the greed, bad decisions and business practices of the insurance companies themselves, entirely apart from malpractice awards, that are driving up health care costs. Malpractice insurance rates are not significantly affected by damage awards and never have been. Those costs were already factored into the premiums. The most significant factor affecting insurance rates has been, for the last 40 years, bad investments made by insurance companies in financial markets and a desire to recover those losses from those they insure, who in most cases are required by law to pay whatever premiums are dictated. There is a direct correlation between investment losses and rate increases, and there is no correlation between damage awards and rate increases. So, yes, the entire story about how "excessive" damage awards are driving up malpractice insurance rates and thus health care costs is nothing more than a brazen lie concocted to further increase the profits of the insurance industry and promulgated by well paid lobbyists and assorted other PR hacks. The entire case for "tort reform" is built on lies and misrepresentations exactly like the Medical Malpractice Lie.

More accurately, I would say it allows one to quantify the risk.

In my perfect world, tort reform would primarily provide a restorative function for loss.


The difference in a murder case is that the jury are being asked to evaluate and decide the facts. The facts then produce the verdict.

In the tort case, the jury is also more than adequately equipped to decide whether a negligent act occurred.

However, this is completely different from evaluating the quantum of damages which more akin to applying the law to the facts. In common-law systems, this is the typically role of the judge.


If you take my comments in context I have no issue with restorative damages.

So, if you are sending a gift, how would you suggest Apple deliver it without a name and address to deliver it to?

No one's steeling your bank account info or reading your txt messages. It's just diagnostic software.

http://mashable.com/2011/12/03/carri...tood-not-evil/

Jury's do exactly the same thing in criminal and civil trials. There is absolutely no coherent argument that can legitimately be made as to why a Jury is fit to decide decisions of life and death but not financial ones. You're also overlooking the fact that judges usually have the discretion to modify awards they deem excessive. (Just as they usually have the discretion to set aside what they deem horribly wrong criminal verdicts.)

Restorative damages? That must be some sort of code for "very low damage award caps", right?

How exactly does any amount restore your privacy, your health, you leg, or a loved one's life? It can't. Torts are only partly about compensating the victim, there are also, and ought to be about, deterring bad behavior. Without a punitive and a deterrent component, without a degree of unpredictability, without the possibility of an extremely harsh punishment, the tort system serves no real purpose at all.

Yeah, he always get's all self-righteous and pulls the old, "I don't see why you have to tell me I'm lying my ass off when I'm being so very polite about it," when he gets called on his bullshit, then goes right ahead and tosses some more at you.

To Gatorguy's employers: hey, he's not even good at what you are paying him for.

Is there any reason to keep it? I can't think of any except for additional marketing opportunities. There's no mention anywhere in the privacy policy on how long Apple will retain PII after it's served it's purpose or when the user has opted out other than "for some period of time".

Hmmm. . .

Wouldn't a lie be continuing to claim something is true after asking and finding out it was not? You've asked me directly whether I have any monetary connections to any tech company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc., and I told you I did not. Yet you continue the same old accusations. Is that a simple mistake on your part Anonymouse or a lie?

If I believed you weren't being paid to post here, then it would be a lie for me to say you are, however, I don't believe you aren't paid to post here, and you have no credibility. You just "admitted"* that you were posting bullshit in this thread, i.e., saying things that you didn't know anything about. You've been caught lying in any number of threads. Obviously, you'll say anything, true or not, you don't care, so nothing you say can be taken as true.


* Is your admission even true, or were you just covering your bullshit with another lie? How can we even tell anymore with you?

I admitted what, that I misunderstood the EULA and didn't know how iTunes Library worked? Somehow you can stretch lack of knowledge to "bullsh**"

You have odd posts sometimes Anonymouse. Are you in the legal profession perchance?

One of us is lying. Unless you can link some "number" of these lies you've accused me of, that purveyor of untruths can be found in your bathroom mirror.

Lacking any links from you, I see no other reason to respond to any of your ad-homs. Balls in your court.

Oh, please, you were lying in the last thread I responded to you in. Stop compounding lies with lies and pretending that no one knows what you are doing.

And, yes, posting crap about iTunes, when you later claim to have no idea how it works (really!? are we supposed to believe that?) is spewing bullshit.

Yup, a fat 24 month contract demanding your firstborn to exit ain't no free or cheap phone.

Quote/link the lies please.

Sure, anyone can go look at your numerous misrepresentations of fact in this thread, or this one: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=137224

Of course there is a coherent argument. Firstly, the jury should decide the matter or guilt or liability. The consequences should be left to judiciary.


You can interpret what I wrote in any way you choose, I will only reiterate that damages should be just in the circumstances.

Which ones were the lies? You're going out of your way to avoid specifics. I'll help you out: There aren't any. Nor are there in any other thread I've ever posted here. I'll been mistaken before, like you. I've not posted every detail of every story before, like you. I've never lied in a single thread. Can you say the same?

Either prove me wrong or go back to the mirror. It seems like your only goal in replying to any of my posts is to be as ornery as possible. The FUD and assorted ad-homs is just a side benefit.

EDIT: On further reflection I think it best I just put you on ignore. I suggest you do the same so as not be be any unhappier than you already appear to be.

In general your responses to me only serve to insult, belittle and accuse. You're acting the part of what ArsTechnica would call an "egregious troll", ban-worthy at most sites I've been a part of. If you don't know what that is, a quick and easy web-search will tell you.

In three different, very active forums where I've moderated for several years we've had to ban only a handful of members who just didn't "get" the forum rules and felt insulting/attacking other members was fair game. Most get the hint that's it's not after the first warning. Add to that 15K+ posts over several different forums where I've yet to put any other member of any of those on ignore. I've always felt that even the most disagreeable poster may have something of value to say, something I can learn from. Unfortunately I see no choice but to make you the first on the list, and hopefully the only one I ever need to. Polite didn't work, nor did attempting to have an intelligent disagreement with you.

Given your utter lack of credibility, perhaps all of them, but definitely the ones where my responses indicate they are.

So, again, it's considered more appropriate for a jury to decide questions of life or death, as is the case in many or most states with the death penalty today, where the actual sentence is decided by a jury, but they can't be trusted to make a decision about financial compensation for an injury?

Of course they should be just, but they should also be significant enough to deter future offenses. That's the strategy that's followed in criminal law sentences, and civil judgments should be no different. So-called "tort reform" isn't about justice, though, it's about minimizing costs to offenders and making those costs predictable. The idea of capping damage awards is contrary to to the idea of justice -- who can decide today what will be just in some future case, the details of which are entirely unknown?