Yes, but there is no technical justification for Spotify to not have real-time, remote access to a database, even if the database is constantly changing. We have had the technology to do that for 25 years. If Spotify is not properly handling the contracts to legally stream content, then some of the fault lays with them. Spotify is basically claiming their defense is ignorance. They can’t be held liable because they didn’t know what they could and couldn’t stream. How is that a legal justification for breaking the law? And Kobalt’s reasons for not letting Spotify know is also dumb.

Cases like this are frustrating. Spotify should NOT be able to stream any artist they want without paying them. But the judge said that’s OK because the victims waited too long to complain. The judge also said it’s totally OK that Spotify doesn’t have a list of what is legal for them to stream, simply because the list is constantly changing. This isn’t a paper list typed out by some secretary. This is a computer database that can be checked a thousand times a second.

There’s also the fact that who was the actual copyright holder was questionable and changed hands during the whole thing, so nobody knew who they should be contracting with.

The point of the sanctions wasn’t to end Huawei or slow them down in the market. It was to prevent access to specific technologies for the Chinese government. All companies in China are owned by the government, so all data gathered by companies (either from customers or from suppliers) goes directly to the government.

Also, profitability is a weird metric when a company is financially backed by a government.

I hope enough companies realize the inherent danger to their IP this feature brings. Or that the government realizes the inherent danger to CUI data and forces there to be an admin level lock of the feature so normal users can’t just turn it on.

I and many others can’t just switch to Linux because we are required to use company laptops/desktops that are admin locked.

You do know that many millions of people are given laptops/desktops for work that have locks that prevent new OS’s from being installed, right?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-10/security/threat-protection/security-policy-settings/interactive-logon-machine-account-lockout-threshold

Right there, in plain English directly from Microsoft:

"Failed password attempts on workstations or member servers that have been locked by using either Ctrl + Alt + Delete or password-protected screen savers count as failed sign-in attempts.

The security setting allows you to set a threshold for the number of failed sign-in attempts that causes the device to be locked by using BitLocker. This threshold means, if the specified maximum number of failed sign-in attempts is exceeded, the device will invalidate the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) protector and any other protector except the 48-digit recovery password, and then reboot. "

This is capitalism 101: whatever makes the most money is what they support. It doesn’t matter who is hurt (or not hurt), or what is right/wrong. As long as they can make more money than they are losing by lawsuits, they will keep doing this. If they can avoid doing anything at all and not get sued while getting paid by customers, that’s even better.

I don’t think you’re right. Those bullets are: “The following list provides examples of common events that cause a device to enter BitLocker recovery mode when starting Windows:”

Why would entering the Bitlocker PIN too many times cause BitLocker to activate? If you are entering a BitLocker PIN then you have already activated BitLocker, right? Please explain to me why, in your scenario, I would be in the position to enter the BitLocker PIN too many times when all I was doing was restarting my tablet after an OS update.

The last bullet says it also happens when “Exceeding the maximum allowed number of failed sign-in attempts.” So even if you are correct that the first bullet is about the BitLocker PIN, then the last bullet is about failed sign-in attempts to Windows.

I like how you keep dismissing someone who is providing evidence by replying with being a jerk instead of giving helpful or factual information. You’re dying on the stupidest hill here.

Where is /c/confidentlyincorrect when you need it?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/recovery-overview

Very first goddamn bullet: “Entering the wrong PIN too many times”

Bitlocker activates when you enter an incorrect OS password too many times. I had my tablet set to unlock without a password or pass code, so I never used whatever pass code I set up a year and a half earlier. After one of the OS updates it forced me to log in with a pass code. I tried some pass codes I thought I might have used, thinking that worst case I would have to do a time delay before trying again… because again, MS never told me Bitlocker was installed and never told me it had a password and never told me I should write down whatever password Bitlocker set for itself and never told me that Bitlocker would lock my entire harddrive if I entered an incorrect password too many times.

But go ahead and keep telling me it’s my fault MS added something so intrusive without telling me.

I lost all of my data on a tablet that had Bitlocker installed without my knowledge. Not one time was I ever told that my drive was encrypted or that there was even something called Bitlocker or that I should write down some password or code. Bitlocker activated because of an OS update, and I had no way to unlock it so I had to wipe the drive. I don’t have an MS account, because I have no need to give MS all of my data, so I couldn’t unlock it that way either. And no, I’m not a 20 year old; I’m someone who has used computers since before the internet and have no interest in setting up a corporate account for every watch, shoe, phone, video game, car, etc. I have no interest in giving MS all of my pictures, documents, emails, and browsing history.

Unless you don’t have an MS account or only set up a dummy account just to get the stupid OS to activate and have never used once since.

I hope your name is Rumplestiltskin, because it gonna be awhile.

No. The answer is always No.

It’s not a bad faith question, and I’m not older than 60. I am older than 40, though.

Seriously, though. The person said they needed a cell phone IN SCHOOL to get through high school because all of their friends moved away and they didn’t like anyone at school. I get needing to connect with friends who aren’t nearby, because I moved around a lot when I was a kid. I also get not being friends with people at your school, because that happened to me in high school as well. But even in the days before cell phones at all I was able to stay connected to my friends at other schools who lived farther away than I could ride my bike to. And I’ll go ahead and throw out my old man bias and agree that cell phones are amazingly better at helping us stay connected to people far away, but you don’t need to connect to friends during school. You can do that after school and on weekends.

I’ll go ahead and be an old man here and say maybe one of the reasons the person had a hard time connecting to other people at school is because all the people were on their phones with friends the whole time. Nobody is looking for new friends when they are constantly “surrounded” by old friends. That said, before the internet was a thing there were also people with no friends at their school, so I’m not saying everyone would make friends if they just got off their phones.

I meant communicate by phone. The person I was replying to said they needed their cell phone to talk to those friends who moved away, so I was asking if the person couldn’t communicate by cell phone after school and on weekends.

I’m sorry, but there’s a wildly huge difference between bubble gum/collectibles/comic books and internet connected cell phones.

I was terrible at paying attention in class, but I always made it through by hearing just enough to get by… until I was in my final year of college when some of the classes got internet connected desktops at every desk. In normal classes I’d be fine, but in the classes with a computer where I could IM with friends I failed miserably (literally went from straight A’s to C’s and a couple F’s in college classes because of internet connected computers being in front of me all the time). And that was a desktop with only a couple friends I knew who also had IM on at the time. I can’t imagine how poorly I would have done at school if every one of my friends had messaging on every minute of every day, not to mention mobile gaming and social media.

And you couldn’t communicate with those friends after school and on weekends?

I’m not an expert, but reading the posts here the answer seems to be “nothing.” The only people affected by this already know how to prevent it.

We’re talking about cell phones here, not hard drives and laptops. I’m not going to ship my cell phone every time I fly out of the country, if only because it has my plane tickets and travel information that I’ll need when I land. And emails and texts might be “stored” in the cloud, but old emails are also stored on the cell phone and can be read even with wifi/cell data turned off.