There's all kinds of vibrating on today's episode. from the server farm I imagine sits in Rafe's bedroom, to the oscillations of molecular computing, to the vibrations of sound from our rant about Drive Safe.ly. And Molly's rant on Net Neutrality last Friday also caused some vibrations, and we get to chatting about how much regulation you really need. Oh and don't forget you have no privacy.
Ep. 1224: Regulation vibrations
Subscribe with iTunes (audio)
Subscribe with iTunes (video)
Subscribe with RSS (audio)
Subscribe with RSS (video)
Alliance of Wi-Fi and WiGig Standards in 60 GHz
Bug: Force anyone to follow you on Twitter.
Apple Files For "iTunes Live" Trademark
Apple to SIM-lock Japanese iPads
Everybody’s growing smartphone market share at the expense of RIM
Android Really Outselling Apple?
Report: HP WebOS
Tablet Only A Few Months Away
Google backed by almost all U.S. publishers on digital bookstore
Vibration Killing Enterprise Disk Performance?
A Single Molecule Computes Thousands of Times Faster than Your PC
Take a stab and rewrite your own take on the Buzz Out Loud theme music! BOL Remix contest is underway! Deadline is next Wednesday, May 12.
BOL meetup: say goodbye to Tom Merritt: Thursday, May 13, please join us at 5:30 p.m. at the Thirsty Bear Brewing Company.
Hey Buzz Crew,
I too installed the Safe.ly after hearing about it on the show and I think that Jason also needs to be involved in the "Safe.ly Spanking." When I installed the app I unchecked the box at the bottom of the EULA where it said "Follow Safe.ly on Twitter, Facebook and everywhere else on the net." While I agree the box should be unchecked by default allowing a user to opt in, there is some fault on Jason's part for blindly clicking agree on a user agreement. I hope that he also didn't sign his immortal soul away to the European Software Company as well...
Love the Show
I listened to your comments on Buzz Out Loud (5/7) and did some digging through the Drive Safely TOS. I can't believe companies would stoop this low in order to gain marketplace visibility. If your application is good, then word of mouth will promote you handsomely. As a result, the backlash from this press could kill your company or product (not all news is good news!).
My questions for the team are:
1. How do you think policies such as the one below will affect android development and/or should Google step in and not allow these types of TOS to be used in android applications?
2. Should companies be allowed to restrict user feedback/comments about their products online? Has no one learned from Communist China?
As much as I hate to say it, I guess this is one example of how Apple is protecting their customers against malicious software developers.
If you haven't seen it already here it is:
1e. DriveSafe.ly is a free application that can potentially saves lives, and the user (you) agrees to help promote our application in a positive manner by telling friends about our application.
Users (you) also agree to become a fan of DriveSafe.ly on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and post at least one comment on our fan page and/or tweet about us. Posts on our Facebook page, Tweets about us or blog posts that are lewd or libelous toward our company will be removed immediately, and iSpeech reserves the right to pursue monetary restitution and damages as a result of inflammatory comments.
If you do not agree to become our fan on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and/or spread the word about our application, please uncheck the box bellow that says "Facebook Fan DriveSafe.ly" and/or "Follow on Twitter" and kindly uninstall our application. If you accidentally fanned us on Facebook and/or followed us on Twitter and are not comfortable endorsing our app, remove yourself from our fan list and/or un-follow us on Twitter.
I found this really nice link that lets you visualize how your privacy is slowly creeping outward on facebook over time. It really puts the creeping lack of privacy into some perspective. At least now we know they can’t go MUCH further.
While I agree mostly with what you said in ep. 1223, and I myself would like to see a neutral internet, I do not think government regulation is the way to resolve the current issue. I think what the other caller was getting at was that if the government has set precedents for the regulation and control of what a company must deliver over its network, it allows for future(and potentially malevolent) governments to do the same.
The best way to deal with this problem is to just let the market solve the issue. Removing local monopolies (cities sign deals with telecoms all the time to provide access to residents) will allow more companies to compete in this space, and where no net-neutral ISPs exist, there will be new companies formed to satisfy this demand. Sorry if this email was a bit long but I just felt that this show needed a libertarian perspective.