Archive for: ban
If you thought RIM was going to cave to foreign countries’ demands to weaken the security of the BlackBerry platform, you were sorely mistaken. RIM’s response is actually quite refreshing (and comical) in an age where big business and government politics are trumping individual freedoms and privacy left and right.
Specifically, when questioned about the recent BlackBerry bans spreading around the Middle East, Mike Lazaridis, RIM’s co-CEO had a few choice sentences:
This is about the Internet,” Mr. Lazaridis said. “Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can’t deal with the Internet, they should shut it off.
We have dealt with this before,” Mr. Lazaridis said. “This will get resolved. And it will get resolved if there is a chance for rational discussion.
Although Mr. Lazaridis said RIM wouldn’t compromise the security of its products, he acknowledged the company would have to cooperate with authorities if handed a court order to do a lawful intercept of a person’s communications. “I would give them the encrypted stream,” he said. “It would have to be like a wiretap.”
We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet,” he said. “A lot of these people don’t have Ph.Ds, and they don’t have a degree in computer science.”
Clearly, RIM isn’t bending over. ‘Tis a proud day to be a BlackBerry user. RIM’s got your back.
Update
Yeah, about that proud, warm feeling over RIM’s hard stance — it was all talk. Local servers are being placed in Saudi Arabia as we speak. So much for consumers’ best interests and privacy.
This may very well be some of the stranger news to start a sudo-Monday: A couple of Google employees have come forward, stating that Google is apparently banning Microsoft’s Windows OS from any and all Google-owned computers.
Almost immediately, people will focus on Google’s Chrome OS interests as the reasoning. Though, the sources claim it is Windows’ rampant security problems that are the cause for the grief, even going as far as to blame Windows’s lax security for the recent China/Google hackfest that’s been carried out…
And the battle wages on…
The latest in an almost juvenile yet entertaining (and I’ll admit it, liberating) move by Google has them yet again, sticking it to the red man. We’ve already seen Google close up shop with their .cn search page, choosing to redirect it to google.hk — Hong Kong’s freer flowing version. China responded by filtering results. So Google countered again with another “catch me if you can” by implementing the now common accompanying Twitter feed essentially killing two censored birds with one stone. First off, the Twitter feeds included in search results are not censored, including plenty of highly controversial topics involving China. Second, Twitter itself has been more or less banned in China for obvious reasons. Awesome, a twofer!
So now we all just sit back and wait for China to make their next move and then see how Google responds. It’s fun for me and I’m sure it’s fun for a lot of you out there. Nothing like a little playground justice, huh?
LA Times Tech Blog
Terrorists and normal civillians residing in Saudi Arabia have something new to worry about this week — security in regards to BlackBerry Messenger and BlackBerry handhelds overall. It’s no secret that RIM has an amazingly secure platform and network with the BlackBerry. Sadly, the bad guys have realized this too and have made heavy use of the encrypted and untouchable platform, angering many governments around the globe. The Saudi gov’t has had enough however and is calling on RIM to let them have full access as to properly track and arrest terrorits and other criminals.
This reasoning of “security” seems noble and honest. And on many levels, it would extremely helpful (if not at least providing some peace of mind) to break down another aspect of terrorists lives. But at what cost? The privacy of millions of Saudi’s and potentially the entire world is at stake. What starts as a security/anti-terrorism movement can easily be turned into a Big Brother from hell landscape whenever the government sees it fit to pry into every corner of our lives. However RIM and the Saudi gov’t react will set a precedent for the entire world for if one gov’t can gain VIP access to the BB network, others will follow.
As is the same in many other areas of security and gov’t, at some point, the “added security or safety” is greatly outweighed by the freedoms and privacy taken away. I for one hope RIM doesn’t back down. If the Saudi gov’t then decides to ban BlackBerry sales because terrorists use them, so be it. That’s just the way it is. I just hope by the time my kids have kids that there is still some form of “privacy” on this planet.
Should the Saudi gov’t be given “behind-the-scenes” access to RIM’s BlackBerry Messenger to help fight terrorism or are the added security holes and potential issues further down the line too detremimental to basic privacy? Are the benefits and real world results going to be outweighed by the cons?
Cellular-News
[Image Source]
- February 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Sony loves their customers. Ha, that’s a joke. Need one of many examples? Take for example people who pick up a copy of SOCOM US Navy SEALs: Fireteam Bravo 3 from a used game retailer. Said customers will find a nasty surprise when they get home — online access doesn’t work. That is, online access won’t work unless 2nd hand customers cough up $20 more bucks to Sony. The reason being Sony and other game developer companies hate used game retailers because they don’t see a single dime of the resale. But, it’s completely legal. Bonus for the consumer.
Sony’s Solution: start removing online features and then charing a “re-activation fee” for new users, regardless if it’s a used game or not.
Such a stance by Sony isn’t anything new. Over the years, they’ve become the poster child of of how not to embrace technology and increase customer loyalty. DRM has also been a staple of their constant failure ridden history as they’ve tried to obsessively control things that aren’t theirs to control. But they’ll never change.
In the end, it’s Sony being the same idiotic, backward thinking company. And these companies wonder why people are driven towards piracy…
Gizmodo > Consumerist > IGN
As if you needed another reason to hate China’s government, it appears their insatiable appetite for fucking the 1+ billion users over needs something new, something fresh. Besides completely destroying (read: censoring) the greatest invention of all time — the internet — the Chinese gov’t has now set their sites on texting.
If you reside in China and are a frequent user of dirty, vulgar, or otherwise, common daily rituals in text based communication, watch out. The gov’t is watching you. Offensive and “unhealthy” messages will be erased and those who sent such messages will have their cellular service cut off by the gov’t.
Anyone on the inside care to comment (if you can even read this)?
When will they learn….
MobileWhack
[Image Source]
Getting a good education in todays world is a must if you plan on getting anywhere in life. Those looking for such an education have many fine and prestigious schools across the world to choose from. Here in the states, Harvard is often heard when comparing various top schools as is Oxford for those in the UK. Today however we’re focusing on the latter and one decision in particular that has students bloddy angry. It all involves P2P file sharing, though, not in the way you’d think…
I’ve written about Spotify several times before because frankly, it’s awesome. Compared to all of the music streaming services in the states, it’s simply the best option. Unfortunately, numerous amounts of red tape and corporate push over have so far kept the UK born service out of the states. But a new development at one of the UK’s most recognized colleges: Oxford.
As is similar with most colleges, P2P and any type of file sharing service is banned on campus computers and networks. Up until this point, Oxford students were able to use Spotify anyway. I mean, it is a legal service with the only knock against it (according to the school’s policies) is that it was a P2P service. Like most of you know, P2P use is generally accompanied by hefty bandwidth usage meaning it puts a heavy burden on networks. Oxford’s network is apparently buckling under the load.
Naturally, students who have come to survive on Spotify’s vast streamable library to offset the overplayed and overhyped top 40 that routinely flood the airwaves aren’t the slightest bit happy. Likewise, the school maintains their position on P2P bans pertaining to Spotify.
So where do we go from here? In all honesty it isn’t that big of a deal in the grander scheme of things (read: Haiti). Not to mention, if school related functions on their network are starting to puke because of all this new fangled music streaming stuff, Oxford has every right to maintain the integrity of their network. Still, in the digital world, it’s a pretty big thing I’d say. It begs the question: Is there a better way to handle it? Perhaps time limits tied to a particular school logon — hourly, daily, weekly?
One possible way that Oxford and schools in general can get around this is by using tunneling and other network management technologies to limit how much bandwidth is allotted to applications and services such as Spotify. Doing so would keep school and student bodies equally happy (in theory).
With restrictions and false boundaries comes those looking to get around said limitations in order to get back to what was once theirs. Such tactics to geeks are like an “Independence Day” of sorts, reclaiming lost freedoms. To the IT/school organization however, it can often lead to various punishments including a blanket computer ban and expulsion. So tread lightly.
Any Oxford students or those familiar with the matter feel like chiming in?
Pocket-Lint
- December 28, 2009 4:02 pm
Thankfully, *del*the fraud problems*/del* whatever caused AT&T to stop online iPhone sales to NYC residents has been solved. Venturing over to AT&T’s website and clicking the appropriate boxes will once again net you an iPhone no matter your zip code — NYC residents included. Whether the “fraud problem” was actually eliminated or AT&T fixed the imminent network problems in the area isn’t known and probably never will be. At least hopeful New Yorkers can be at peace, let out a sigh of relief, and get to ordering that bulk order of 1,000 iPhone’s they were so eager to resell for cheap shiny iPhone that was gleaming in their eye.
LaptopMag
- December 28, 2009 12:40 pm
**Update: They’re back…(see below) If there was ever a more obscure and BS answer, this would definitely take the cake for #1. It was only yesterday that we found out about AT&T’s blacklisting of any NYC online shoppers from ordering iPhones. The most obvious (and likely reason) to those with even a small shred of common sense is AT&T performing some damage control. With the holidays no easing and iPhone usage still skyrocketing (as is data usage) something had to be done to keep AT&T’s NYC network from imploding.
Most of us would assume a massive network upgrade. But that would of course eat into carrier profits as such an upgrade would cost tens of millions if not hundreds of millions — all for one city. But this is one of America’s biggest and most densely populated cities. It needs to be done. AT&T however things a more fitting option is to simply block any iPhone sales via online methods when potential customers input a NYC zipcode. Stupid? Yes.
That was yesterday, Sunday, a day in which the AT&T PR team is enjoying some much needed R&R. But today is a new day and a Monday morning at that. What exactly do they have to say for themselves? According to numerous CS calls, chats, and conversations, AT&T is calling the iPhone of NYC blacklist a result of “increased fraud”. Riiiight. I could almost believe that back in 2007 right after AT&T and Apple made in-store purchases mandatory, creating a hot ticket, hard to get item. But in 2009 when iPhone’s are almost as easy to find as a candy bar at gas station? Come on AT&T, you certainly can throw together a better response than that can’t you?
Red flags to this answer include such questions as:
- If fraud is such a big deal, why can I still buy iPhone’s online with other zipcodes as well as within NYC at brick-and-mortar stores?
- Why are other high-end smartphones not seeing the same NYC/online purchase ban?
- Going back to the first point, what the hell does fraud in a local region have to do with online sales?
Online fraud can be committed anywhere at any time regardless of location. Highlighting that, it’s hard to see AT&T “fraud” claims having any real merit.
I’m chalking this one up to the obvious: AT&T’s NYC network is getting worse by the day. They’re desperate beyond all hope…
**Update: NYC online iPhone sales are back up.
All Things Digital
