jtome

Clickbait title. Nowhere in the video does he say anything about apple, or even disk encryption.

Starting with oracle hopefully. (Un)fortunately (and IANAL) I don't think copyrights are enforceable if you don't enforce them everytime you know of a violation.

Still both the Soviet Union and China have turned into far more humane societies during socialism than they were at any earlier times

What do you mean be this? Surely modern != humane

Interesting that one of the touted benefits of content blockers in apple marketing was that content blockers can't track history.

I suspect Kazakhstan doenst have the resources to mount attacks against tor unless they can pay some western company to do it for them. Blocking it is a somewhat different matter.

I don't think this is entirely correct, I think there might be some disagreement in Islam as to whether interest is actually forbidden

Most of the (non-systems programming, which use C) classes offered at my university are in Java but a few of them are taught in O'Caml (The programming language and compiler ones).

Linking can be considered "dissemination" thanks to the DMCA, see http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152

I actually know very little about the LLVM, so the article had me almost confused for a second until I confirmed that the LLVM is just a compiler as I thought.

Ignoring the issues with his analysis of google and apple being brought together by the LLVM, which has its own issues, this is a really horrible article.

And the android NDK uses the gcc.

I agree about the ISC, that's why OpenBSD, the most free OS (as in you can do whatever you want with a larger percentage of it than any other OS), prefers using the ISC over the BSD license now.

Did anyone notice the line:

What if it will become illegal to sell consumer devices without signature checks for all software running on it.

I find it pretty weird that he's complaining that any country foolish enough to enact such a draconian law would also criminalize all gplv3 software. I personally think the gplv3 would be wonderful in this case since it would create a high cost for enacting such an evil law.

When I heard of snapchat I spent two seconds figuring out that turning off your data connection after receiving the photo allows you take as many screenshots/view the picture as many times as you want (I have no idea if this still works).

I don't know much about it but plan 9 had alot of interesting innovations in this field. I think the idea of it was to build a "UNIX out of a lot of little systems, not a system out of a lot of little UNIXes"

Keep on mind alot of this enthusiastic userbase is in the third world or too young to afford it.

Although I think you're right about everyone sharing blame I think as not for profits this type of behavior is egregious from universities.

Um...what?

I had said that it isn't obscene for the federal government to make 50 billion dollars a year off a much larger amount of very risky loans that it bears almost all the risk for, and you accuse me of "shilling for the banking industry".

I think it is you who needs to try harder.

EDIT: changed all to almost all, since not all loans are federally guarenteed as warrenm points out

Just some context: Student loans outstanding will exceed $1 trillion this year http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/201...

The amount universities are charging students is what's 'obscene' to me. Making 5% profit on "obscene"ly risky loans isn't the cause of the US's student debt problem. This just sounds like populism and pandering.

One forum user pointed out this link:

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/priority-proj...

I would be thrilled if this project gets somewhere, even to gnash-like quality.

I think it would really depend on the local population but I generally think its a bad idea to have elected officials in the criminal justice system. In Alabama they have elected judges and they do things like campaign on how tough on crime they are.

Adblock just very noisly requests a donation, it doesn't require you to actually pay. Adblock plus does not do either.

Some of the primary things people use computers for are watching flash videos and listening to mp3s and I would rather people use 99% Free software and 1% proprietary software than the other way around because someone zelously recommended to them a 100% Free Distro, which they found unusable and then switched back to windows. One of my worst experiences when starting out with Linux was installing Debian on a laptop, when I was without ethernet, because it didn't come with the proprietary wifi driver I needed, I don't wish to subject a non-technical person to that.

Lubuntu is a fantastic choice, I install it on all of my friends' old, crapped up, virus infested Windows XP computers and it has them running like new. The interface requires almost no adjusting to coming from XP, much less so than unity or xfce or even windows 8 for that matter. Throwing away old but functioning hardware should be a crime.

"Isn't the whole point of all this outrage that NSA have equipment or data exchange arrangements with GMail etc. so that SSL is irrelevant" Yes which is why the NSA needs the cooperation of the companies, since this info can't be gotten just by listening on the wire.

Wrong, if they are tapping at the wires they only see that your using gmail, not the content of your email or who you are speaking to (Unless you turn off ssl for some strange reason).

Section 215 of the Patriot Act has a secret interpretation

Right, like dropbox which was "coming soon".

I don't think they will give the companies immunity by name.

well first i think you should be commended on having these policies and I think that this is the best you can get with a website. However an adversary can force you to change these policies. While an adversary can also force a developer of a free software project (private by design) to put in some kind ofof backdoor, in theory the target will be able to avoid this by reviewing the patches made to a project, in practoce I imagine a single target could be compromised by this backdoor, but i imagine it would soon be discovered. This is the key difference

The article says that privacy by design but then goes on to list examples of privacy by policy: - "Don’t track anyone’s search histories" This can simply be changed by changing you policy and deciding to start tracking it - "Be careful that anonymized data really is anonymized, and is minimized to provide the most benefit with the least data." A bad actor can always save a non-anonymized copy for "law enforcement" purposes - "Keep nothing if users select the “Do not track” option in their browser." Again more privacy policy, since it relies on you not changing your mind about DNT

A real example of privacy by design is duckduckgo's hidden service since it cannot, by nature, know who is using it.

I found most of the courses of action suggested by the article to be privacy by policy, which is laudable but it aint privacy by design.

I've always thought of no-fly lists as completely out of place in a democracy. Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything.