[LINK] Steve Jobs: Great unwashed don't need PCs
kim at holburn.net
Fri Jun 4 10:11:07 EST 2010
I assume that developers can run stuff (ie their own apps) on their
own ipads so there must be ways of getting software onto them. If
Apple want companies (or say schools) to use them (and the companies
don't mind the lack of second source) then I presume there are ways or
will be ways that companies can get their specialised software onto
the devices and also to limit location data transmission which could
well be commercial in confidence data.
I do find the idea of having to consent to Apple (and partners and
licensees) collecting of my location data in order to able to use the
location systems horrifying.
I suppose most privacy laws are about how companies deal with personal
data. What about companies collecting and sharing personal data when
they don't need to? Any laws about that?
I have a GPS device that can show me maps of where I am without
communicating it with big brothers. I guess as long as you don't have
maps in the device memory you would have to effectively tell your
location to say google in order for google maps or earth to work.
Hmmmm... is google one of those partner - licensee thingies?
If schools are going to use them could the schools get access to the
students' location data? Hmmm... minefield.
On 2010/Jun/03, at 10:23 PM, Ivan Trundle wrote:
> On 03/06/2010, at 8:54 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> The single
>> A couple of other items in the iPad license.
> Which one are you reading from? Here's the real deal:
>> 1. Apple claims to itself the right to use location data about
>> individual iPads. Sure, "this cannot identify you" is the promise,
>> we've all seen plenty of ways to glean identifiable data from
>> that are supposed to be obfuscated.
> Not just Apple. It goes further than this: the terms of the iPad
> licence allow 'Apple and its partners and licensees' to collect,
> maintain, process and use your data including realtime geographic
> location. To whit:
> "By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and
> consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees' transmission,
> collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to
> provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this
> consent at any time by not using the location-based features or by
> turning off the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using
> these features will not impact the non location- based functionality
> of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the
> iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and
> location data by such third party applications or services."
> It is quite obvious when using the OS that Location Services wants
> to store information, and you have the choice in every app to deny
> this option.
> It's also up to the user to determine if they wish to trust the
> statement that 'location data collected by Apple is collected in a
> form that does not personally identify you...'.
>> 2. The license can only terminated in one direction - by Apple. The
>> is not granted any rights of termination within the license itself.
>> is objectionable; although it may not survive serious legal
>> the intent seems to be that even if you hand back the iPad, you're
>> bound by the license.
> I cannot see anywhere in the clause, 'Permitted Licence Uses and
> Restrictions' that alludes to this: I suspect you're reading the
> 'Termination' clause out of context. The section headed 'Transfers'
> allows the transfer of the licence (a one-time permanent transfer'
> which is reasonable to me. The implication is that this transfer
> terminates the licence, in fairly plain English, even for a legal
> document such as the license.
>> 3. The license also binds the user specifically to US law - that
>> is, you
>> must not use the iPad in any way that contravenes American law. I
>> know enough US law to know whether I might do something that might
>> day contravene some law that the US passes. Nor, I suspect, do any
>> of us.
> This was in existence ever since Apple began selling computers:
> there is nothing new here: and it's not generally American law, it's
> *Californian* law - if it applies - since this is where the device's
> parent company is based. And in most cases, it's not even
> Californian law.
> The license states in numerous paragraphs that 'some jurisdictions'
> have different laws that apply. There are about 50 or so references
> in the license that refer to exceptions and such clauses.
> "(e) You agree to use the iPad Software and the Services (as defined
> in Section 5 below) in compliance with all applicable laws,
> including local laws of the country or region in which you reside or
> in which you download or use the iPad Software and Services."
> However, this statement offers even more information:
> "If you are a customer who is a consumer (someone who uses the iPad
> Software outside of your trade, business or profession), you may
> have legal rights in your country of residence which would prohibit
> the following limitations from applying to you, and where prohibited
> they will not apply to you. To find out more about rights, you
> should contact a local consumer advice organization."
> ...and for UK citizens, who have more stringent controls in place:
> "If you are a consumer based in the United Kingdom, this License
> will be governed by the laws of the jurisdiction of your residence.
> If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any
> provision, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, the remainder of
> this License shall continue in full force and effect."
> So it's up to the Australian government to mandate anything here,
> not Apple.
>> The control freak-ism goes far beyond a couple of maybe-harmless
>> of Steve Jobs' mindset.
> A provocative statement which might have been better expressed to
> mask an obvious prejudice. You're clearly concerned that Steve Jobs'
> view does not match yours.
> If it restricts your choices, buy something else. I cannot see the
> element of control being anything other than a benefit, rather than
> a limitation. It's about time that computers weren't simply open-
> ended boxes of trouble.
>>> Apple is not 'blocking access to [whatever]', it is merely
>>> exercising its right to choose what to sell.
>> And preventing the user from having a "right to buy" anything Apple
>> decides not to offer. "Choosing not to sell" is a different matter
>> "preventing anyone from buying".
> If the Apple appstore model fails, you will be proved right,
> Richard. It's a walled garden. Some might say it is a reincarnation
> of the 'AOL model' and doomed to fail, but it's proved to be a
> goldmine for many, and has not hampered sales of either the hardware
> or the software in any way to date. By any measure, it has been a
> spectacular success.
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
More information about the Link