Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Monday February 24 2014, @09:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-click-ok-to-accept-the-eula dept.

andrew writes:

"Alternet.org reports recent updates to terms of conditions for Bank of Americas cell phone app and Capital Ones new credit card contract have given banks unsettling new abilities. These privileges include the authority to access to your phone microphone and camera or even showing up at your workplace and home unannounced at any time.

From the the article:

We're witnessing a new era of fascism, where corporations are creating intrusive and over-bearing terms and conditions that customers click to agree to without even reading.

As a result, corporations in America have acquired king-like power, while we're the poor serfs that must abide by their every rule or else."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by lennier on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:26AM

    by lennier (2199) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:26AM (#6316)

    Yeah, um. All I can say is, there's a reason why Richard Stallman set up the Free Software Foundation in 1985, and why there's an FSF Freedom Zero [fsfe.org]. And it's not because the 1980s were a paradise of software terms-of-service openness and love.

    But it's cute that today's kids are rediscovering how abusive TOSes can be, after a generation of taking an open-connectivity Web for granted and then abandoning it for locked in 'apps'. Is it too grumpy-old-man of me to remind everyone that when TCP/IP and SMTP were starting to spread in the 1990s, the existing Online Service players fought openness tooth and nail [google.co.nz]? Yeah, it probably is.

    Next: this UNIX thing - think it'll ever spread beyond Bell Labs? Never mind I'm sure there'll be no interference from corporate headquarters if it catches on. [wikipedia.org]

    --
    Delenda est Beta
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:58AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:58AM (#6471) Homepage Journal

    It turns out that the NSA is heavily into linux, and is quite good about contributing patches back upstream.

    Using software for anything you damn well please, means that freedom zero provides the freedom to commit gross human rights violations.

    I would be completely unsurprised were I to learn that North Korea is heavily into Open Source as well as Free Software.

    (They're different things, kids. Learn to tell the difference.)

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1) by lennier on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:31PM

      by lennier (2199) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:31PM (#6909)

      "It turns out that the NSA is heavily into linux, and is quite good about contributing patches back upstream."

      Yep, they probably breathe oxygen and use the English language as well.

      "Using software for anything you damn well please, means that freedom zero provides the freedom to commit gross human rights violations."

      Yes. But that is the point of freedom: that people can do (arbitrary bad things) and (doing that bad thing) is the wrong thing, not (using software) to do it).

      The NSA implements the reverse logic and says "the Internet/your cellphone should not be used to commit (arbitrary bad thing) therefore we will tag and trace every packet sent and reserve the right to take pictures with your cellphone to make sure that the Evil Bit is not enabled". But that seems more problematic in the long run than saying "this is a technology, use it for what you want".

      I'm not a huge fan of total libertarianism. I believe there is a place for government. But software and communication technology seems to be one of those awkward natural monopolies where it works best to either have zero regulation, or 100% totalitarianism, and I'd rather not have the totalitarianism.

      Where tracing and enforcement needs to happen, I'd rather it not be baked into the fundamental core software we can't escape.

      --
      Delenda est Beta
  • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:10PM

    by Open4D (371) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:10PM (#6645) Journal

    ... when TCP/IP and SMTP were starting to spread in the 1990s, the existing Online Service players fought openness tooth and nail [google.co.nz] ...

    For me, the linked page says "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." I'm accessing it from Europe.

    • (Score: 1) by lennier on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:44PM

      by lennier (2199) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:44PM (#6924)

      Ah, sorry about that. It was a random Google books link that seemed to summarise the 1980s online services world: the relevant paragraphs were:

      The other major development of the 1980s was the rise of online services, beginning with simple text terminals that business could use to search expensive proprietary databases of legal, medical, technical, financial and marketing information. Despite crude technology, by the late 1980s online services had become a $10 billion industry. Then, with the spread of home computers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, consumer online services became available, through CompuServe (the oldest vendor), AOL, Prodigy, and the early versions of MSN, among others. Both the business and consumer online services relied on slow modem connections between personal computers and their host services.

      The early online services industry was based on the traditional mainframe/minicomputer model, consisting of mutually incompatible, closed-architecture systems in which each vendor provided its own proprietary software and user interfaces. These services neither communicated with each other nor permitted independent (unaffiliated) content providers to transmit information to each other or to end-users. Thus, for example, a CompuServe subscriber could not send e-mail to a Prodigy subscriber, and the software required to use CompuServe (or Prodigy, or America Online, or Sierra Online, or Lockheed's Dialog System) could not be used to view or use any of the other services. Similarly, the process of developing content was specific to each service. All of these services used their own closed, mutually incompatible development tools and server software.

      (Not sure about 'Sierra Online'. That was Ken and Roberta Williams' game company, though they probably also ran a BBS like all tech companies of the era did; I doubt it was a major online service though.)

      --
      Delenda est Beta
      • (Score: 1) by Open4D on Wednesday February 26 2014, @03:12PM

        by Open4D (371) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @03:12PM (#7323) Journal

        I admit I was secretly hoping for some juicy story about legal attacks (perhaps using patents) on the new interoperable technologies. Or corporate lobbying of politicians on the matter.

        But anyway, thanks for the extract.