> we need to agree that the bulk of the last 20 years of startups business models are broken
I agree.
If a startup is build on selling my data, I am more willing to pay a fee then to have them sell my data.
If we could go back to WhatsApp having a fee instead of Facebook using and selling my (meta)data, I would switch anytime. If Telegram starts raising a fee for using their messenger without anybody reading my messenges/location/... I am all in.
What does competitors stop doing that now?
No business is 100% compliant in any law. If they want they can just for the sake of it bury you in legal work already.
For the last few years I have been a big fan of the Motorola smartphones. I just bought a Moto G5 Plus. Basically has everything you wish for, but the removable battery.
It is nearly stock Android and has a good mix of specs. I have everything on (Wifi, Bluetooth (running a MiBand 2), GPS. I have a moderate usage and plug in the phone in the evening between 50 and 70%. There is Zero Bloatware on the thing. The fingerprint reader actions are just great. I have a work iPhone and caught myself using the same gestures on the iPhone, I even think they are better than the iPhone ones.
Before that I had a Moto G (1st Gen) and even that did last me a whole day without a problem. I just replaced it because my mother broke her phone, so she got the Moto G and I had a reason to buy the beauty Moto G 5 Plus.
I would recommend going for the plus, due to better specs. Runs smoothly and I have currently no point to complain. (Okay maybe missing compass, which makes finding the ISS in the night sky a bit hard. You also can't use augmented reality apps very much, because they use the compass for orientation (like flightradar24 or google googles)
What? They couldn't put in an IMU with a compass? My XPERIA M from 2013 didn't have a compass....such progress. Moto does some real awkward stuff like not having a simple flash LED on the E a while back.
It's not a question of cultural positions but more a question about why airport communications were added to an exclusion list when it's perfectly legal listen into all other private signals bar police radio (as far as I'm aware). Even collecting data on private WiFi broadcasts is fair game; as we learned when it was exposed that Google Street Car was doing just this.
It's pretty obvious why it was made illegal to eavesdrop police radio but less clear why airport communications are also illegal. So I find it odd (baring in mind I'm speaking from a position of ignorance - which is why I'm raising this question) that airport communications were added to what seems a pretty sparse list of excluded broadcasts.
Maybe it's just another example of laws not keeping up with technology? ie that law originates from a time when radio transmissions were pretty limited to private and public broadcasts whereas nowadays most of our private communications are also broadcasted via some frequency and waveform - albeit we now have automated encryption/decryption techniques to protect our correspondence. So if the law was written now it would be more like a whitelist of content you could listen into (eg radio and TV broadcasts) rather than a blacklist of specifics you could not. I'm just guessing here though.
Capturing any communication is a criminal offense in Germany unless you were explicitly allowed to or it was intended as a broadcast. This is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the people communicating. There is no blacklist. Police, ATC, and similar are not even mentioned in the laws that are used to prosecute those cases.
As far as I know there have been investigations into the Google wifi case but I have never heard of anything coming out of it.
The law in its current form is pretty new, it even was clarified just a few months ago to specifically mention non-acoustic communication.
Thank you. Maybe the same is true in the UK (where I reside) as well and I was mistaken about it being legal?
I'm not sure if this is the relevant legislation but I've found the following in section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006:
A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person—
(a) he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or
(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.
"Why is it normal to be banned from interpreting electromagnetic flux that's being pushed through the space around me, in my house, and literally through my body, without my consent?"
Anti-propoganda? I am not sure of the reasons, but I recently read a book on the pirate radio stations that broadcast am from ships just offshore England a century ago. It was illegal to listen, but the broadcasters were in international waters. There was also a tv show set in WWII about illegal radio transmission, called Alo Alo. I also know the fcc had a list of countries the US Hams arent allowed to respond to. Seems emptied now http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_2&id=am...
A friend had mentioned that listening to ambulance broadcasts led to this ban (since ambulances were broadcasting personal information). Instead of fixing the tech, they decided to make listening a felony.
