First, I suspect the owner would need to connect the fridge to the home wifi before it gets remotely updated. And because I can't think of a legitimate reason to do so, there's a bit on the owner.
But I'd love to see the contract for the purchase of the fridge. Is there a clause that says the space on the fridge containing the advertisements is still owned by Samsung? If not, I'd feel within my rights to send them an invoice for using my space for ads. Like if someone painted an ad on the side of my building, I'd charge them for the privilege. You know...if I actually owned a building. :D
As I said in another reply, I'm not pro-Futurehome here. And, to be fair, without digging into their code, the idea that a local API integration didn't go through a server seems insecure, to put it mildly. I don't like the idea of an IoT device responding to a port 80/443 request, which would be the case otherwise.
But my comment was more of a thought exercise. What should happen to a company that sold equipment requiring an online service to function completely? Should there be legislation that forces the escrow of the necessary software components with the idea of public domaining them upon dissolution? Not to mention the requirement that any acquiring company either continue support or trigger the public domain clause.
To be fair, Futurehome wouldn't be the hill I would die on with this discussion :) I was more interested in the larger point.
Releasing source code to the public domain could be an answer, although, interestingly, someone would need to incur the costs of running the server without revenue for the clients to see the benefit.
I would probably suggest that the source code be placed in escrow so that, upon dissolution of the corporation, it automatically becomes public domain. Because a company on the way to bankruptcy isn't going to spend ANY effort moving what they consider valuable IP to the public until it's too late. And from a legal perspective, I'd be in favor of legislation that requires this for any product with a server-side requirement for functionality.
So, perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't the article say that Futurehome went through bankruptcy? If it didn't emerge from bankruptcy, wouldn't their previous customers be in the same situation (bricked devices) but without the possibility of paying to keep them working?
Maybe there needs to be a larger conversation. What duty is owed by a vendor to keep their products working after the company's demise? And what's the best way to enforce that duty?
"Which seems way more arbitrary and stupid than the old system."
This is absolutely true. More artibrary and more stupid. And more proof of geniusness in action.
However, perhaps there's a deeper, more subtle point being made. I could argue that the current Twitter offers at least as much, if not more, entertainment value as the old Twitter. For the same low cost.
That's what not paying $8 can get you.
“… you have to wonder how much merger logistics distracted the company from competent revisions to its privacy and security standards …”
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not wondering at all. I have seen nothing to indicate that privacy and security were in Dish Network's wheelhouse before the merger. I'm going to speculate that the merger did nothing to improve their lack of competency. I'm not imagining the following conversation taking place:
"Hey, boss, Casey is incredible at working out security issues, not to mention having an in-depth understanding of privacy. Let's put them on the merger."
Just wondered if I'd missed the news that Musk took over Netflix. Charging for password sharing after years of promoting it feels suspiciously similar to charging for using an API after years of benefiting from others using it. And the decision was made without foreseeing obviously negative consequences, another Mwitter trademark.
If cameras on the street show me entering my house and not leaving until after the crime, the police have the same knowledge, just achieved using a different technique. One that's not unconstitutional.
It feels to me that the source of the knowledge (phone vs camera) is the difference. And that doesn't seem sufficient to be the distinguishing criterium.
And please know I'm not trying to be difficult with this. I've heard many experienced people say the same thing. I'm just trying to understand the legal principle at work here.
Forgive my naivete, but I have a question about why requesting location data for the area around a crime at the time of the crime is so unconstitutional.
In my mind, I see this as equivalent to collecting all of the videos from cameras that are at or near the scene of a crime, then watching the hours before and after the time the crime was committed. I'm pretty certain that doesn't fall into the category of unconstitutional.
What makes location data different?
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest"
I'm confused. You're suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?
Am I the only one expecting that Hannity tonight will include a 10-minute rant on this fake news? And it has to be fake since Fox isn't on the list 'of the world’s most prestigious media organisations'?
"...their[governments] job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management."
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't delivering water and patching streets a capital-intensive business that requires constant refresh and constant management? In other words, other than the word 'technology', it's exactly what governments are supposed to do.
Maybe the DOJ should issue a memo saying that they can't target journalists? I've heard someplace that memos are considered to be roughly the same level as the actual Consitution when it comes to its impact on the behavior of DOJ prosecutors.
Perhaps, given the hour, I'm at a low ebb mentally, but I was over the moon with all the puns. And that's even taking the gravity of the lawsuit into consideration. I understand why trademarks might tug at you. I feel the pull of the topic as well. But that's probably just the syzygy of complex legal concepts with infantile humor.
Expecting Competency
"...in absolutely no way reflect his competency." It's so cute you still expect CEO salaries to be tied to any type of competency.
Who owns the fridge?
First, I suspect the owner would need to connect the fridge to the home wifi before it gets remotely updated. And because I can't think of a legitimate reason to do so, there's a bit on the owner. But I'd love to see the contract for the purchase of the fridge. Is there a clause that says the space on the fridge containing the advertisements is still owned by Samsung? If not, I'd feel within my rights to send them an invoice for using my space for ads. Like if someone painted an ad on the side of my building, I'd charge them for the privilege. You know...if I actually owned a building. :D
As I said in another reply, I'm not pro-Futurehome here. And, to be fair, without digging into their code, the idea that a local API integration didn't go through a server seems insecure, to put it mildly. I don't like the idea of an IoT device responding to a port 80/443 request, which would be the case otherwise. But my comment was more of a thought exercise. What should happen to a company that sold equipment requiring an online service to function completely? Should there be legislation that forces the escrow of the necessary software components with the idea of public domaining them upon dissolution? Not to mention the requirement that any acquiring company either continue support or trigger the public domain clause.
To be fair, Futurehome wouldn't be the hill I would die on with this discussion :) I was more interested in the larger point. Releasing source code to the public domain could be an answer, although, interestingly, someone would need to incur the costs of running the server without revenue for the clients to see the benefit. I would probably suggest that the source code be placed in escrow so that, upon dissolution of the corporation, it automatically becomes public domain. Because a company on the way to bankruptcy isn't going to spend ANY effort moving what they consider valuable IP to the public until it's too late. And from a legal perspective, I'd be in favor of legislation that requires this for any product with a server-side requirement for functionality.
But...bankruptcy?
So, perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't the article say that Futurehome went through bankruptcy? If it didn't emerge from bankruptcy, wouldn't their previous customers be in the same situation (bricked devices) but without the possibility of paying to keep them working? Maybe there needs to be a larger conversation. What duty is owed by a vendor to keep their products working after the company's demise? And what's the best way to enforce that duty?
Such a deal!
"Which seems way more arbitrary and stupid than the old system." This is absolutely true. More artibrary and more stupid. And more proof of geniusness in action. However, perhaps there's a deeper, more subtle point being made. I could argue that the current Twitter offers at least as much, if not more, entertainment value as the old Twitter. For the same low cost. That's what not paying $8 can get you.
Basic competency
“… you have to wonder how much merger logistics distracted the company from competent revisions to its privacy and security standards …” Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not wondering at all. I have seen nothing to indicate that privacy and security were in Dish Network's wheelhouse before the merger. I'm going to speculate that the merger did nothing to improve their lack of competency. I'm not imagining the following conversation taking place: "Hey, boss, Casey is incredible at working out security issues, not to mention having an in-depth understanding of privacy. Let's put them on the merger."
Musk buys Netflix?
Just wondered if I'd missed the news that Musk took over Netflix. Charging for password sharing after years of promoting it feels suspiciously similar to charging for using an API after years of benefiting from others using it. And the decision was made without foreseeing obviously negative consequences, another Mwitter trademark.
If cameras on the street show me entering my house and not leaving until after the crime, the police have the same knowledge, just achieved using a different technique. One that's not unconstitutional. It feels to me that the source of the knowledge (phone vs camera) is the difference. And that doesn't seem sufficient to be the distinguishing criterium. And please know I'm not trying to be difficult with this. I've heard many experienced people say the same thing. I'm just trying to understand the legal principle at work here.
Honest question
Forgive my naivete, but I have a question about why requesting location data for the area around a crime at the time of the crime is so unconstitutional. In my mind, I see this as equivalent to collecting all of the videos from cameras that are at or near the scene of a crime, then watching the hours before and after the time the crime was committed. I'm pretty certain that doesn't fall into the category of unconstitutional. What makes location data different?
"It took EIGHT lawyers to be this wrong."
You know that old saying. Too many kooks spoil the broth.
"...begging OAN viewers to “blow up” AT&T’s phone lines..."
In related news, AT&T announced that there were three additional calls in yesterday's log. That made up 0.000001% of AT&T's daily complaints.
Re: Let's Check The Details
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest" I'm confused. You're suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?
Am I the only one expecting that Hannity tonight will include a 10-minute rant on this fake news? And it has to be fake since Fox isn't on the list 'of the world’s most prestigious media organisations'?
"...their[governments] job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management."
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't delivering water and patching streets a capital-intensive business that requires constant refresh and constant management? In other words, other than the word 'technology', it's exactly what governments are supposed to do.
Maybe the DOJ should issue a memo saying that they can't target journalists? I've heard someplace that memos are considered to be roughly the same level as the actual Consitution when it comes to its impact on the behavior of DOJ prosecutors.
Crap. I should get to writing some tests for this application I'm developing.
So Rubio wants to create the SMePA? The Social Media Protection Agency?
So Rubio wants to create the SMePA? The Social Media Protection Agency?
Perhaps, given the hour, I'm at a low ebb mentally, but I was over the moon with all the puns. And that's even taking the gravity of the lawsuit into consideration. I understand why trademarks might tug at you. I feel the pull of the topic as well. But that's probably just the syzygy of complex legal concepts with infantile humor.