> they can still sell subscriptions and show ads without violating user's privacy
At risk of going off topic, there are two issues at play. One, respecting users' privacy. And two, complying with GDPR. The former does not always mean the latter.
And even if one complies with GDPR, having material over which GDPR applies could result in frivolous complaints and costly regulatory interactions. It is reasonable for a newspaper with a mostly non-Europe to spend resources on other priorities.
But they still have the data of European residents. So merely blocking access to EU residents hasn't done much to lessen their GDPR liability, unless they've cleaned all their data.
From what I have read about GDPR here, the intent matters. By blocking EU ip addresses, they have shown their intent to not service the EU and therefore are exempt from GDPR.
There is no source needed that is a result of jurisdictions and national sovereignty
If China passed a law saying you must now delete all references to Tiananmen Square if you have nothing to expoae yourself to their legal jurisdiction you can keep it and literally tell them to get bent.
This is what I don't understand. Why did the LA Times add the IP filter in the first place? Why do they care if they get sued and/or fined by a foreign country? Let the EU block their IPs or DNS themselves if they feel like it.
To make money advertising to EU users, most advertisers probably have some EU presence, hence the ad network would too. Thus, the ad network might require their users to be GPDR-compliant.
Because they don't have the technical knowledge to ensure compliance with 88 pages of mandates, maybe?
If you violate GDPR you will be fined by the EU even if you do not exist in the EU.
It's funny that they have the technical knowledge to implement tracking (or outsource it to another company), but they don't have the technical knowledge to comply with GDPR (or outsource it to another company).
They probably feel that the non-targeted ad revenue they would make from EU customers would not be worth the server costs, costs to comply with the law, and potential fine costs (risk).
Maybe or it could be that they don't have a data compliance officer, which is mandated by the GDPR.
Or it could be that they just don't know what the issues are and have no clue how to get compliant. IP addresses are protected data and make you a data controller if you have log files.
The point is that if you are exercising the law to it's maximum extent then it is next to impossible not to collect personal data, even if you have no intention to.
For example, some hosting providers in Europe now automatically disable webserver logs unless the customer explicitly activates them to make sure they don't accidentally collect user data.
Now you might say, well if you run your own virtual server where you control all the services and know for a fact that no personal information is collected you won't run into that problem. But then you might still collide with the law because some network monitoring of the hosting provider might store connection logs. And it is on you to make sure that the companies you use for your business are compliant with the GPDR. You even need to have a contract with every single one of them with which you instruct them to process your users data and that they have to comply with the GPDR when doing so.
And even if you think everything you are doing is correct there are still some law firms that try to extort money from you by claiming some violation. In Germany this game of cat and mouse has already begun (and I don't mean the well known cases against Google, Facebook et. al)
I’ll just copy-paste a comment (not mine) from a different subthread: “This all-or-nothing approach to morality is stupid. Just because not every decision in your life may be 100% morally justifiable, that does not mean “throw all ethics over board”.”
Very insightful comment, I suppose you represent the modern, alternative right movement then?
This is a very big problem, you can't have bags like "the left" or "the right" because that's too general to represent any meaningful philosophy.
As an example, many people would argue Clinton is left. I'd argue she's on the center right of the spectrum, if not further and would certainly not refer to her as left-wing in general. I'm not making a judgment here as to which is correct, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that broad labels are not at all helpful.
I seek to represent those interested in a moderated and careful approach to moral dilemmas, where the restraints of ideological extremism and tribalism are left at the door.
That wasn't my point. My point was that all those requests are feature requests, as opposed to lifting some artificial restrictions. Because iOS is not open source, they would need to be coded by Apple, so it's a perfectly valid business decision on their sise not to invest in them.
I don't know. Those all seem like valid complaints to me. The os is separate from the applications and everything he listed has its own industry.
Microsoft was reamed over installing IE as the default browser on their OS, so how is not letting you change safari as the default on iOS any different?
Coulda said the same thing with Microsoft, go buy a Mac. Monoply power isn't a binary stat, it's a sliding scale and eventually these companies get enough power to start affecting other industries
I know. That's my point. People are complaining about decisions made by the company as if they're civil rights violations.
"I can't change the default SMS app on my phone!" This has always been the case with the iPhone since the beginning. Until Apple says that this is now a new part of the OS, pretending like that was some kind of bait and switch or deceptive business practice is completely silly.
> People are complaining about decisions made by the company as if they're civil rights violations.
No they aren't - not here at least. Scanning this thread, it looks like they're just complaining.
> pretending like that was some kind of bait and switch or deceptive business practice is completely silly.
Who did that? Can you point out a specific comment? I certainly didn't and I don't see any other comments that did. I simply pointed out how Apple makes their product difficult to use by being so stingy with the level of access that they allow me to have.
Anyway, there is an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple right now. Since their iPhone does have somewhere around 50% marketshare in the USA I think there's a chance for it to succeed and I hope it does.
>Anyway, there is an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple right now.
And what are the damages claimed against them? Even if they have 50% marketshare, they still have competition with a larger marketshare both domestic and worldwide. There's nothing that can be brought against them because they're not doing anything illegal or immoral.
Enigma wasn't hard through obscurity. The Allies had the Enigma machine long before they were able to crack it. It was hard because with the equipment of the day, it was pretty much unbreakable in the same way that prime-number based cryptography is today. It was only A. Turing developing a completely novel kind of machine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe) that enabled the decryption. In the same way that quantum computers could break the current cryptography easily. It's not obscurity, it's assuming that some (mathematical) task is hard.
Don't forget about the Polish. They too broke the encryption before, but then they were invaded, and no precision machinery was available to increase the number of rotors to 10.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma
Turing did it too, independently.
Didn't know about that! But it seems they were able to break the system only while the Germans where sending the settings of the plugboard in the header of each message. Once that was changed in the early 1940, their decrypting techniques wouldn't work anymore.
Btw, from the wikipedia article: "lazy cipher clerks often chose starting positions such as "AAA", "BBB", or "CCC"" Weak passwords were an issue already back then.
I went to Bletchley Park a couple of years ago. It's a very fascinating place. I remember hearing stories of code breakers who could infer that a piece of plaintext was all JJJJJJJJJJJ simply because, upon looking at the ciophertext, it contained no J (relying on the fact that no letter would ever encrypt to itself in Engima, because of the reflector). Indeed the Poles don't get enough credit for their contributions. And yeah, virtually all encryption was similar to Engima back then: the Allies too had a similar machine. I believe traitors sold secrets or Engimas were captures on U-boats and so on, so security through obscurity wasn't really a thing back then either.
From what I know Turing didn't do it independently: the Polish sent their work to England about two months before being invaded, what Turing did is improve on their work so it could scale (the Germans added more rotors so the Polish decrypting machine wasn't helpful anymore).
Anecdotal evidence: That is the case in my circle of friends. My news feed has been empty for quite some time, but we still use the messenger and facebook itself to organize our own private events.
