Readit News"The Interior Ministry explained that while most systems at the Daejeon data center are backed up daily to separate equipment within the same center and to a physically remote backup facility, the G-Drive’s structure did not allow for external backups."
This is absolutely wild.
As a government you should not be putting your stuff in an environment under control of some other nation, period. That is a completely different issue and does not really relate to making backups.
No one wrote this article with the intention of "trapping privacy-minded tech enthusiasts."
I mean no offense, but this sort of thinking (that an engineering blog is attempting to attack you) is unhinged. There is not some grand conspiracy. Companies like this are not the shadowy, highly-competent and absolutely evil entities you think they are. They are barely functional to begin with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Also, I don’t think that the parent comment was being serious.
- They are not asking for consent, there is just an ok button. - They assume consent when you navigate further on the site, this is not valid consent. - Consent needs to be for specific, well defined purposes. “help personalize content, tailor and measure ads and provide a safer experience” are three purposes in one and none of them are well defined. - They are probably already setting the cookies in your first request, when you have not seen any information yet (did not check)
Blaming Apple for optimizing their platform model isn’t the problem, it became a problem. Imagine 2007 and the following years already with the EU act in full effect. AppStore would be dead on arrival.
In my view Apple’s AppStore went from feature some people have when they buy a smartphone to necessity. 2007 and even 2016 was a perfect time to opt for a live without smartphones.
Not so 2024.
So EU should change Apple’s and Google’s status from producer to provider of essential service like electricity for example.
Some often overlooked fact is, that Apple decides at will who is allowed to publish apps via AppStore and who is not.
This is an area where regulation is needed in my opinion. In other areas of life you simply cannot take down businesses at will, while Apple can.
No, it wouldn't have been, as the DMA only applies to 'gatekeepers' and if you're new, you're simply not a gatekeeper. You need at least 45 million monthly active users and 7,5 billion of revenue for three years.
> So EU should change Apple’s and Google’s status from producer to provider of essential service like electricity for example.
That's the whole point of the DMA: designate these parties as 'gatekeepers', providing essential services ('core platform services' in terms of the DMA). Once you are, you have certain obligations that should allow proper interoperability with other/smaller parties.
That's because your search engine results are a joke, not because of the DMA.
If I search for 'hotel <city>', I get an ad from Booking.com, then some hotel ad, then an ad from Trivago, then some Google map with hotels (make sense, but all results there are sponsored by intermediaries), then Booking.com, then Booking.com again, then Expedia, then Tripadvisor, then Trivago.
If you only present me sponsored results from intermediaries, then don't be surprised that people only click on sponsored results of intermediaries.
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007061452-Do...
If I'm reading it correctly, the problem is that Apple Music and Spotify compete, but Apple Music gets preferential treatment, because:
- Apple Music allows you to subscribe from within the app, and Apple isn't taking some % cut in the App Store from its own apps
- Spotify can't afford to pay a % cut to the App Store, so not only do Spotify subscribers encounter a hurdle (can't pay from within the app), but Apple doesn't even allow Spotify to provide users with a link to pay on the website from within the app
This is quite obviously completely unfair. But it seems like there aren't really laws directly against this thing. These investigations and court cases seem to be relying on other statutes around antitrust, anticompetitive behavior, etc., that aren't always clear.
But today, app stores and platforms and marketplaces are a common thing, where Amazon sells its own products on Amazon, Apple sells is own apps on the App Store, Google lists its own websites on Search.
Why isn't there incredibly specific and detailed legislation to prevent companies from favoring their own products in stores/platforms/marketplaces specifically? Why are we relying on outdated legislation that companies think there's a good chance won't apply to them if taken to court?
In other words, why don't we have clear laws that would have prevented Apple from ever considering this self-preferential behavior in the first place? This seems like such a no-brainer for legislators. It doesn't even seem like a Republican thing or a Democrat thing where the other side would oppose it -- it just seems like a common-sense thing.
Hopefully the US will follow some day.
A country like the Netherlands has its own issues (mainly housing) but doesn't have the myriad of pain points you can find in Germany like Schufa, anti-customer contract rules, or public healthcare inaccessible despite paying more than 400€/month for it as a single individual.
In the Netherlands we have BKR, which is less all-encompassing than SCHUFA, but also needed to be fined before giving proper right to access under the GDPR: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/national-cred...