That seems like a stronger mandate, but I think what I proposed would actually reign in their power better than your proposed decoupling.
First, different services would still have to agree on data formats to interoperate. The ecosystem would be quite similar to windows file formats, and we've got plenty of experience seeing how that works out. It's better than what we have now, but not a panacea.
The bigger issue is that in addition to wielding data lock in, these companies wield network lock in. With storage decoupling, if I load up my own profile in a hypothetical "Facebook competitor" app and make a post, Facebook has no desire to display that post to users of its app that are my friends. However with my API proposal, competitor apps have the ability to publish directly on Facebook's site and be treated exactly the same as every other post.
Also, my proposal has a longstanding philosophical grounding that the abilities of computing should be available to all - companies shouldn't be able to insist on specific methods of usage that computationally disenfranchise users.
I am completely confounded that I have not heard of any real legislative proposals to establish a clear separation of duties in regards storing data and selling it.
There is an obvious conflict of interest if you both have my data and are granted free reign to do what you want with it (via click through agreements that modern society is now dependent upon) you have unfair leverage over me.
If you are able to do this en mass without much competition... I'm thankful things haven't gotten worse than they are.
Something similar to Glass-Steagall is desperately needed in the digital era. Hopefully somebody is working on it...
The CDC is warning about mental health impact as a result of extended isolation. They are trying to encourage public messaging that supports social connecting using technology.
Can you use your knowledge to provide ways to do that outside of Twitter?
And do you disagree that there is a void in our social construct by this distancing that is not somewhat emulated by services like Twitter, even if imperfectly?
Instead of thinking of advertising as "technology" you might want to look into the military-esque research that brought it into the free market. Just like the internet, psyops was first destructed and formalized by people that value information over influence. As only one will beget the other with any statistical certainty.
For that to happen there needs to be strong leadership from the top incentivizing standing down behavior with subsidies, not winner take all rock em sock em race to tragedy of the commons
Does this mean some abstraction is lost between the creation phase and final "save to pdf" phase? It'd seem ridiculous to not easily be able to track blocks while it's a WIP.....
wouldn't be surprised if there's typically a "finance" guy making profit driven/marketing decisions pulling emotional strings on a the (willingly) naive "entrepreneur" partner
It's embarrassing to have to disclose such a thing to the public, but they did. I don't recall anything nefarious and they owned up - to at least some extent.
That is more than a lot companies can say. Is that the ONLY reason why you dis Lenovo? Because if so, it makes them that much more attractive in my book of flippant remarks
Deliberately bundling adware that injects fake results with affiliate links into search engines [1] on their machines seems nefarious in itself. The MITM of SSL connections just seems like an unexpected added bonus on top, and it took the US Department of Homeland Security to make Lenovo own up to it [2].
I want to emphasize how bad the TLS MITM malware was (adware is too nice a term): they installed a TLS MITM attack by adding the same CA public key to the trust store of every non-business device they sold, and proxied the internet traffic through an on-device proxy that contained the private key to that CA. Yes you read that right: every device with this malware had the public and private key used to decrypt the TLS traffic of every other device with this malware, effectively exposing every user to have all of their traffic not only decrypted, but also MITM'd again. Not only was it malicious, it was incompetent too.
I don't consider this a technical failure, it's a business failure. One of two options remains: either nobody in Lenovo reviewed this software from a privacy and security perspective, or they did review it and the business deal overruled the security team's ability to veto it. Either way, this indicates an organizational dysfunction so severe there's no way I can trust Lenovo with my personal or business security again.
> They installed spyware. That is more than enough reason to lose trust.
I agree on principle, but Lenovo is no less trustworthy than any Smart TV manufacturer, such as Samsung, Sony, or LG.
It has become a common industry practice to subsidize consumer hardware with pre-installed spyware. The only solution here is to replace the pre-installed OS with an open-source alternative.
I would still pick Lenovo ThinkPad running Fedora Workstation over any iMac or Macbook product.
Well, yes but at least I can refrain from setting the Wi-Fi password in my TV and still end up with a perfectly working TV (I do.) A computer without Internet is not very useful nowadaysm
Strict enforcement policy on cold storage data warehouses. And sensible policy for the app providers, like not caching PII.
Implement and enforce at the fed level using this division in a manner that is something akin to Glass-Steagall.
Owning data should not be something providers can ever exploit.
[edit]: I also think this could be used as a means to break apart Big Tech