davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,748
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,187
Reactions
-
ExpressVPN brings its VPN app to the Apple TV
brianjo said:I get that people WANT VPNs to get around restrictions, but isn't that pretty similar to having an app that lets you pirate videos? You don't want to follow the rules and pay what's needed where it's needed, so who cares about the TOS that you agreed to, right?Not even close. In most countries, there is nothing illegal about bypassing geo-blocking. While in nearly all countries, pirating movies is illegal. About the only reason why geo-blocking exist is because the streaming service you might be subscribing to, made a licensing deal with some other entity to allow them exclusive rights to steam certain contents, for certain areas. Or due to different movie rating standards, in different countries.For instance, when you subscribe to the NBA League Pass for a certain NBA team, you do not get the home games if you live in certain area codes close to the home team arena. You only get the away games. That's because the NBA sold the licensing rights to NBA homes games to another service (Regional Sport Network (RSN) ), that are usually available (for a premium) on local cable or satellite dish networks in the area. (or it might be broadcast live on a local network.) Thus the NBA can not infringe upon that license. But nothing stops a subscriber from logging into their NBA League Pass account from an area code that is streaming the home games by driving there or by using a VPN. Thus being able to watch the home games. You are basically watching contents that everyone in the World that's not logging into their NBA League Pass account from certain area codes that are close the home team arena, can watch. You are actually infringing upon the license of the company with the rights to broadcast the home games but you didn't sign off on any EULA with them or accessing their service illegally. The rules only exist between the NBA and the service (RSN) that acquired the license to the home games.Another example of geo-blocking is that the UK have different censorship standards for movies, so often there are certain scenes in movies that are censored for the UK only and not in the US (or anywhere else). The Matrix is one example. In the UK, headbutts in fight scenes are not allowed in "15" rated movies. So in the UK, the scenes where Morpheus and Neo headbutts with Agent Smith (in their respective fight scenes) are deleted on the UK version, so to keep a UK "15" rating. There is nothing illegal about any UK citizen getting a hold of the US version of The Matrix and seeing the headbutts. Streaming service like Netflix might only be allowed to stream the UK censored version in the UK. Even the UK version of the DVD disc release have the headbutts deleted. But there's nothing illegal about a UK citizen buying the US DVD disc release (in the UK) from Amazon or watching a streamed US version by using a VPN to log onto to their Netflix account. The rules only exist between the movie producers (or Netflix) and the UK government. Not between the movie producers (or Netflix) and the UK citizens or between the UK government and its citizens.Using a VPN to avoid geo-blocking is more like using an ad-blocker when surfing the internet or even with older technology, recording an OTA TV show and using a feature on the remote that allows you to skip (FF) the commercials. You are not doing anything illegal.
-
Apple files legal challenge over Europe's demand for third-party app stores
gatorguy said:AppleZulu said:
The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.aldanno said:Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?
I don't get it.
IMO it's more like the old west mining towns, or coal-mining Kentuckians back in the 1890's and 1930's. Because someone lived or worked in the company-built town, all their purchases of food and supplies could only come from the company store. Any proprietor's stores that dared open might be burned down and the owners run out of town. Workers were kept behind gates or fences with the excuse that they were “protecting” laborers from unscrupulous traveling salesmen.
https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935
That eventually became illegal of course.The US never made "company towns" illegal. Most of them had to close down because the industry that they were built for were no longer viable. And a lot of them close down because of workers revolt, not because the government made them illegal. Even from your link .....>However, government observers maintained that Pullman’s principles were accurate, in that he provided his employees with a quality of life otherwise unattainable to them, but recognized that his excessive paternalism was inappropriate for a large-scale corporate economy and thus caused the town’s downfall. In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court required Pullman to dissolve their ownership of the town.<The SCOTUS only force Pullman to dissolve ownership of town properties, that weren't related to Pullman's industry. The SCOTUS did not rule "company towns" illegal and force all of them to shut down.Here some some historical facts of some other "company towns" that existed well after the SCOTUS forced Pullman to dissolve their town.Oh, here's one that you might be interested in.But the latest is that Google will not go ahead as plan because of the economy. Not because "company towns" are illegal. So long as Google wasn't planning to pay employees in "Google Bucks", that could only be used to pay for rent or to shop in ...... "GoogleTown".And about the worker being force to shop at the "company town" store, that was not the main compliant by the "company towns" workers. Their main complaint was that they were being paid in "scrips", that could only be use to buy stuff in the "company town" stores. Workers wanted to be paid in cash, so they can choose to spend their pay elsewhere, besides the "company town" stores. Eventually, being paid in "scrips" in place of being paid in legal tender for work performed, was made illegal.
-
Apple's flavor of RCS won't support Google's end-to-end encryption extension
gatorguy said:
Why would Google want to pay for securing WhatsApp or Facebook messages, and supply the servers and infrastructure to do so? I'm sure it's expensive enough to give it to Google and Samsung Message users for free. Google doesn't want to do this forever,, and as a member of the GSMA standards group have tried to push E2EE as a part of the RCS standard. What's one reason they're fully supporting and integrating the proposed MessageLayerSecurity standard, while still working with GSMA to integrate E2EE into the RCS standard. MLS brings cross-platform and cross-app E2EE security. and won't require Google maintain servers to do what the carriers would not.davidw said:gatorguy said:
Google cared because they wanted to offer private and secure messaging for the not-Apple community and no one else was willing to take on the effort and expense. Now that Google figured out how to offer it all over the world, and developed the structure and support, the carriers want in too. Nothing prevented it before except for those carriers doing what they could to maintain control over it to the detriment of consumers.Anilu_777 said:I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google.If Google was the least bit concern about the privacy and security of the not-Apple community messaging services, they would allow all Android messaging services to offer Google RCS with E2EE. But Google don't want Android messaging services like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Telegram others to be able offer Google RCS with E2EE because this would mean Android users could use any Android messaging service to open Google RCS E2EE messages that their carrier has adopted. Google only wants Google Messages to have E2EE with RCS and that's the way it is now.
If GSMA continues to drag their heels as they have for years, Google has covered their bases by already supporting MLS in addition to their own flavor of E2EE RCS.
Why wouldn't they (want to pay for the cost of other messaging service to adopt E2EE with RCS). Google is paying most of the cost for the telecoms (that are dragging their feet), to easily adopt RCS, by hosting their RCS messaging on Googles servers. You don't think it's costing Google anything to do this? So even you must admit that Google wants Android users to use Google Messages and this is their main goal. Not their concern about Android users privacy or security. Which they can have by using other messaging services. The more telecom companies that adopts RCS, the more Android phones will come with Google Messages as the default messaging service, if the telecoms wants to offer Google RCS with E2EE with their service.
-
Apple's flavor of RCS won't support Google's end-to-end encryption extension
gatorguy said:
Google cannot collect user data from Google Messages RCS. End of story. So yeah, you made that part up.chasm said:
Oh, let me clarify that for you. Google wants to a) collect data from messages, and b) push rich advertising into messages, which of course they would benefit from.Anilu_777 said:I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google.I didn’t make this up — it’s been referred to in previous articles talking about Google’s version of RCS. Apple would never allow crap like that, so Google was never going to get Apple to adopt their version of RCS.I am actually starting to feel bad for Android users, because if Google gets its way their experience in messaging is about to get a lot crappier.
Can RCS be used for delivering rich media which could include advertising? Yup, but that's not a Google exclusive.You're the one making things up. We went through this once before and you are still so blindly loyal to Google that you don't want to see what is plainly clear for everyone else.Google E2EE with their version of RCS, can only exist if both the sender and receiver are using Google Messages. All Google Messages uses Google servers and this is what allows Google version of RCS to have E2EE. Much like how all iMessage users are all using Apple servers and WhatsApp users are all using WhatsApp servers. If either the sender or receiver are not using Google Messages, the message is no longer E2EE. Even Google Messages will default to SMS, so the receiver can still get the text message. And this will most likely happen in a group chat where if one of the person in the chat is not using Google Messages, the whole chat is no longer E2EE for anyone in it. So to say that Google can not collect users data from Google Messages is making things up. You can't possibly believe that Google can not collect users data from unencrypted messages, that they are hosting on their own servers.This is why when Apple adopts RCS, there will still be no E2EE between iMessage and Google Messager. They exist on two different companies servers and uses different protocol. Google RCS E2EE is not a standard. And neither is Apple iMessage E2EE. However, when Apple adopts RCS, both iMessage users and Google Messages user will be able to text each other using the standard RCS. Much like how they can text each other using SMS now. And both Apple and Google can collect users data. But it's mainly Google collecting users data that is the concern for most. And you can bet that if the telecoms adopts a standard E2EE protocol, Google will not be all too happy, as once that happens as Android users no longer be locked into using Google Messages to receive RCS messages that are E2EE. Once E2EE protocol is a standard, it will be avialable for every messaging service to use. Which is what Apple is waiting for.
-
Apple's flavor of RCS won't support Google's end-to-end encryption extension
gatorguy said:
Google cared because they wanted to offer private and secure messaging for the not-Apple community and no one else was willing to take on the effort and expense. Now that Google figured out how to offer it all over the world, and developed the structure and support, the carriers want in too. Nothing prevented it before except for those carriers doing what they could to maintain control over it to the detriment of consumers.Anilu_777 said:I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google.That is not the reason at all and not even close. The not-Apple community have plenty of choices of messaging services that are secure and private with E2EE. And many of them have more features than Google RCS, are free to use and works with-in the Apple community. Google is not offering anything to the not-Apple community, that are not already available to them, for years now.What Google wants is for Android users to use Google Messages as their goto messaging service. Right now, only Google Messages offer RCS with E2EE using Google version of RCS. Google have not allow any other Android messaging service, except Samsung through a special deal, to have E2EE using Google version of RCS. That the E2EE protocol is not included in Open Source Android because Google version of RCS is not a standard with-in the telecommunication community. RCS is a standard and the telecommunication community have not yet standardized E2EE. The only way for the telecommunication community to offer E2EE with RCS is to use Google servers to host their RCS messages. And only Google Messages is capable of E2EE with RCS. Which would mean that any telecommunication company that wants to offer RCS with E2EE, must use Google Messages as the default client messaging app on all Android phones. Even their own messaging app would not have E2EE and Google Messages will still handle SMS.If Google was the least bit concern about the privacy and security of the not-Apple community messaging services, they would allow all Android messaging services to offer Google RCS with E2EE. But Google don't want Android messaging services like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Telegram others to be able offer Google RCS with E2EE because this would mean Android users could use any Android messaging service to open Google RCS E2EE messages that their carrier has adopted. Google only wants Google Messages to have E2EE with RCS and that's the way it is now.Even with as many telecom companies that have adopted Google version of RCS, SMS is still the telecom standard. And even now, with all telecoms that have adopted Google RCS, more messages are sent by SMS that RCS. This because SMS is a true standard that is on every mobile phone. Doctors sending a reminder to patients about an appointment do not have to worry about which messaging service to use, in order for their patients to receive the reminder. Send it SMS and they will receive it with the messaging app that comes preinstalled with every mobile phone connected to a carrier network. Even an iPhone. No need to use any other messaging app. Walgreens don't need to learn how to send text messages with all the popular messaging services, in order to send a simple text message that a prescription is ready to be picked up.SMS is siill a big money maker for the telecoms. SMS is still being vastly used by businesses to reach as many mobile phone owners as possible with advertisiing or simple messages. Most don't need any more what SMS offers. SMS will be the standard for many more years because the telecoms don't want to lose the revenue SMS stills brings in, because to Google wants to offer RCS to everyone, for free.
