Tech Companies Face Criminal Charges If They Notify Users of UK Government Spying (techspot.com) 152
An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Yahoo became the latest company promising to alert users who it suspected were being targeted by state-sponsored attacks (excepting Microsoft, who made a similar announcement just today). Twitter, Facebook and Google had previously assured their users that they would be warned of any potential government spying. The UK, it seems, isn't happy about this. They are pushing through a bill that will punish the leaders of any company that warns its users about British snooping with up to two years in prison. Specifically, UK ministers want to make it a criminal offense for tech firms to warn users of requests for access to their communication data made by security organizations such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
End game? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the end game with all this? At what point do people decide not to let this crap happen, and what steps do they take to enforce it? I honestly can't imagine a civil rebellion going anyway, even in a country like America where so many people are already armed with guns. Politicians obviously have no interest in backing down. It's like a new cold war.
Re:End game? (Score:5, Interesting)
China is showing us one of the possible end games [youtube.com]. Facebook is already patenting features along those lines. Combined with omnipresent spying, this "new" type of oppression will work. It's a terrifying future.
Dan Geer [youtube.com] describes our situation as a cold civil war. It would be useful if more people recognized that.
Re:End game? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not trying to be an ass
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But almost all summaries of videos transcripts would end up being summarized into "people are a problem".
Re: (Score:2)
Or a better AI project: cyborgs that travel back in time and assassinate people who made useless clickbait YouTube videos when they should have just written it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one of 'em (Score:2)
I honestly wanted to follow those links and read what you were talking about and then... oh, YouTube.
The full text of the second one, Cybersecurity as Realpolitik, Dan Geer's hour-long speech, is on his web site as a text file [tinho.net].
He skipped over a couple items during the speech, as unnecessary for that particular audience (given the limited time) and said they'd be in this posting, so it may be more complete and useful. (I haven't read it through yet, having just watched the youtube...)
I found it extremely in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Live off WHAT land. The land will all be owned by someone else. This is already well underway. (Check out real estate prices.)
Interest rates are below inflation, making it nearly impossible to save. People of moderate means who own land are being slowly squeezed off of it. Sometimes because of job mobility requirements, sometimes because of taxes. Sometimes for other reasons. No one thing is doing it, it's a death of a thousand cuts. If you do maintain ownership of land, it's being hemmed about with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What can you do for them that would cause them to live on their land? (Hint: see the Enclosure Acts for a past analogy.)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the end game with all this?
Imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever
2nd tech desert: UK. (first is North Korea) (Score:2)
the UK is headed in a terrible direction, and they will be cut off by tech companies that plain flat out don't want to screw around with those wreckers. cut off.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the problem with a surveillance state is that it neutralizes control instances. It usually devolves into a police-state pretty fast and then more slowly into fascism. Fascism is however inherently unstable, as it kill productivity and prosperity. Usually the start wars because that is a temporarily effective means of deviating attention from how bad things are. And in the end, at some point, these regimes collapse. It can take quite a while though. If the Germans had been a bit less greedy and a bit m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The end game? There is no end. It's a cycle, at least that's what I'm seeing with all of the history that I've consumed.
Something about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time and with the blood of patriots...
There will, eventually, be a step too far. It's one of the reasons that I'm so disturbed by people who advocate allowing their government to disarm them, for their own safety... It's as if they don't or won't admit that liberty comes with a price and that price is a lack of safety
Re: (Score:2)
Academics been told what not to publish or talk about in public, UK maths and crypto education enjoying a nice chilling effect.
A push down on brands to include a gov ready trap door, back door when needed.
Exported software and hardware are collect it all ready by design.
Re: "what steps do they take to enforce it?" will be what was always done to ensure every syste
Re: (Score:3)
There is not going to be any revolution. Anywhere. Ever.
Yeah, I'm sure the leaders of all the Arab Spring countries thought exactly the same thing. It would be difficult, but not impossible, for it to happen in a 1st-world country, but the consequences for the rest of the world would be devastating.
Re: End game? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Arab Spring was a movement wanted and supported by Western powers and, especially in Lybia, it would have gone nowhere without direct Western intervention. For a more realistic outcome to any attempt at rebellion, see Tian an Men... While you still can.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the driving force behind the Arab Spring was rising food prices. Hungry people will revolt, even here in the west and the powers that be know this and will keep the population well fed and entertained.
Re: End game? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's more than one way to revolt. I agree that the "open warfare by flag waving troops" isn't going to happen. But what's far more likely is that, more and more, people simply... stop. They stop buying things other than necessities. They stop going out in the evenings. They no longer participate in society. No marriages. No offspring.
It looks like just another economic downturn at first. But there never seems to be an upturn again. Slowly, slowly, things just get a bit worse, and a bit worse, and a bit worse. Because people stop participating.
That's when governments will really go crazy. Because there's no leader of a resistance to arrest. None of those flag-waving troops to battle. There's nothing they can do. Can you make people go to the movies? Force bowling teams to form at the point of a bayonet? Demand people volunteer at the homeless food lines?
Societies build social capital over decades and hundreds of years. They can use up all that capital just as slowly, as people simply no longer give a damn. That's when things end, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Re: (Score:2)
You think people are going to stop fucking because they are mad at politicians...? Or that people would cause their own economic downturn and willingly give up their jobs, and in turn food & shelter? Uhhh... No thanks.
Re: End game? (Score:4, Interesting)
They no longer participate in society. No marriages. No offspring.
You think people are going to stop fucking because they are mad at politicians...? Or that people would cause their own economic downturn and willingly give up their jobs, and in turn food & shelter? Uhhh... No thanks.
Ever heard a phrase to the effect 'This is not a world I would want to bring a child into'?
Between abortions and contraceptives there is no need to stop having intercourse, just stop having babies. Without immigration, the population of 'first world' countries is already shrinking.
Also, the worse the economic climate, the more people will save their money against future problems. Not everyone, but those with discretionary income will be more inclined to save it up or put it somewhere safe as opposed to making more purchases or making riskier investments.
Have you heard the phrase 'jobless recovery' much in the last few years?
I doubt it is any sort of intentional protest, but if people do not have confidence in their leaders, they will tend to hold back.
(if you are stuck with the choice between Trump and Hillary, and the one you want least wins, will you celebrate by going out and buying a car?)
Re: (Score:3)
Ever heard a phrase to the effect 'This is not a world I would want to bring a child into'?
Have you ever seen the TV show "16 and Pregnant"? (if not, you're lucky. It seems like it was meant to be a warning, but then horribly miscalculated teenage stupidity and turned into an aspiration).
You seem to think that the majority of the population is made up of reasonable, logical-thinking people who actually think before they act. I think you need to go watch Idiocracy, it's becoming more of a documentary than a comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
No marriages. No offspring.
You had me until this. Failing to procreate--both biologically and ideologically--is one of the surest ways to ensure that you lose a generational war (which is exactly what this sort of thing is). If you fail to pass your values onto your successors while your opposition is doing so, there may be an economic downturn as your side stops contributing, but it'll eventually even out as their side grows to make up the difference, after which time they'll have won and you simply won't exist.
Re: End game? (Score:4, Insightful)
Eat shit, fuck off, and die, o cowardly anonymous statist pig. There have always been revolutions and rebellions, and there will always be revolutions and rebellions. Counting on the masses to remain opiated indefinitely is a LOSER'S policy.
The establishment has certain advantages in terms of having vast, well-supplied agents of oppression, but it also suffers the disadvantage of being highly identifiable (nowhere to hide), and possessing much infrastructure which has to be protected.
Re: (Score:2)
When the GOOD guys do it it's okay!
Yes, well, there is a continuum from what most people see as acceptable: that 'somebody' (including police and intelligence services, but also journalists and the public) keeps a discreet eye open for what certain individuals and organisations do, to the unacceptable: that the same 'somebody' spies on everybody's most private and personal secrets - like when police (or journalists) hack into mobile phones etc. As far as I can see, there isn't a fundamental difference between the two ends of the scale, it's
Piss off! (Score:3)
I have problems with that.
And that is the problem. This will do NOTHING to DETER a terrorist.
If you want that, then you look for specific sites that they are going to right now. Not a year ago.
Looking at records from a year ago will only result in more "why didn't you connect the dots" crap from the idiots demanding more of this.
If the UK government can crack it then so can the Chinese government and the Russian government.
Does the UK government really want the Chinese and Russians spying on the communications of British citizens?
Re:Piss off! (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this any different to National Security Letters which the US uses broadly to the same effect? The UK just want the same...
Re: (Score:1)
One of the big differences is that, by law, US NSLs can only request access to transactions like financial records, who a person called on the phone, or addresses a person emailed. They are not legally allowed to request any content of messages. While law enforcement has pushed to access to encrypted content, that can't be done with an NSL. However, if the UK is trying to include access to encrypted messages, that extends beyond the power of a US NSL. This seems even more draconian than the US spying.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that NSL can be used to acquire existing data, but not to force someone to design broken systems.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that NSL can be used to acquire existing data, but not to force someone to design broken systems.
How do you know? If someone gets a NSL they can't tell you about it... how do you know what they're being used for? Remember the lesson of Qwest.
Re: (Score:2)
Until now, they weren't able to find the needle in the haystack. And now they have the solution: More hay!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "back door" is a US consumer grade OS's that allows bespoke key loggers crafted per user to get the plain text as a message is created (typed in) before any powerful new software can even encrypt.
The real revolution over the past decades is the low cost to keep it all and then sort rather that just watching for keywords or new connections with known people of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that all your examples are greatly exaggerated in both directions, to the point of being false.
You are not allowed to handle nuclear weapons, but government agencies can.
Only specific agencies, and only specific people in them, with loads of safeguards in place. Conversely, ordinary citizens *can* go to school and learn all about nukes and eventually handle very sensitive stuff - more safeguards and such, which is very similar.
You are not allowed to take the life of another, and yet government agencies can.
You can take the life of another in certain situations. Conversely, the government can not take lives willy-nilly, and especially not those of its la
What About Not Notifying Users? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can the act of failing to communicate be construed as notifying users? For example, consider the case of TrueCrypt where the original developers announced that they would no longer be developing or maintaining TrueCrypt and "helpfully" suggested that users install Microsoft BitLocker instead? Now you're getting into layers of abstraction and how certain groups of people might interpret a communication or a lack of communication. Laws prohibiting communication are rarely effective, except perhaps in the shor
State-Sponsored Attacks != Government Requests (Score:3)
The summary is confusing two separate situations:
State-sponsored attacks are when a government agency hacks or social engineers or otherwise obtains your data against your will AND against the will of your service provider. That's what Yahoo and Microsoft are talking about. They can safely and legally tell their users about these attempts because, if for no other reason, they can claim they don't know who's responsible for the hack.
Official government requests for users' data, like US National Security Letters, are where the government uses legal compulsion rather than trickery to obtain the data. Obviously governments can and do add legal requirements to not inform affected end users. In Australia the laws even forbid revealing that there has not been a request for users' data; no warrant canaries for us!
There needs to be compulsary notification (Score:1)
If you don't notify the person there data is requested then how can they use their right to challenge it in the court? They would have no legal recourse or rights in the matter, because it would be kept secret from them.
There needs to be compulsary notification of the person under surveillance, and a proper court order to keep it secret (and then only for a short time during investigations). Otherwise its just a police state with a judicial system only there to rubber stamp prosecutions.
What's we learned ba
I forget the name for it (Score:1)
Notify everybody they are not being spied on until they get an order. Then when the notices stop coming you will know what's happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Warrant canaries. Governments can make them illegal too. Or, at least, they can in Australia; maybe the US's constitutional protections around freedom of speech could make it harder there, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Governments can make them illegal too.
Are you serious? They prohibit telling people they are not being spied on? Fascinating. Oh well, I guess the voters don't really mind... I have to remember how conservative people really are, and that most of them approve. To me this just shows what weak knees the liberals have. They can't win elections worth shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? They prohibit telling people they are not being spied on? Fascinating.
It just says you cannot report on the existence or non-existence of certain types of warrants. I doubt such language is even necessary (warrant canaries have not been tested in USA courts yet) since using a warrant canary shows clear intent to break the law. In my opinion tech companies only use them for good PR since the financial penalties are not that high.
Re: (Score:1)
In my opinion tech companies only use them for good PR since the financial penalties are not that high.
Same here. I just didn't know the government can compel a person to tell a lie, or prohibit the mere mention of warrants at all (Australia). I guess, with the lack of resistance at the voting booth, people are okay with it, or even demand more of the same when I look at the election results. It is hatred at work really. Pretty damn sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Warrant canaries can come in many forms, so it's hard for authorities to get proof that something is a warrant canary or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, for something to be a warrant canary, it has to be generally known that its a warrant canary - thats the entire point of it, it has to be fecking obvious.
Or do you think a company can come up with something hush hush that only certain members of its secret club would know about, except that all its customers are invited to that club and initiated into the secrets? Yeah, lets see how swearing 5 million people to silence about the "not a warrant canary *wink*" turns out...
Re: (Score:2)
No. You only have to get the message to somebody that is not affiliated with the company (so under no legal threat) and have them explain the meaning of the canary.
Re: (Score:2)
They can make them illegal, but that is very, very hard to do in a way to make a difference. What are you going to do? Put the one doing the signature in jail until he complies? Or even forcing a company to stay in business? Right.
People making laws are among the most disconnected from reality on the planet. Enforcement of such laws still has to have some dealings with reality so may well fall short.
Re: (Score:1)
Warrant canaries work in the USA because the USA has constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. This includes not being forced to say something. That way you can say you haven't received a NSL until you have, and then nobody can force you to keep saying it. The UK does not have freedom of speech. People like to think that freedom of speech is a universal thing in "the west", but in most countries it actually does not have the force of constitutional law and is thus much more malleable by oppressive legi
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt a warrant canary would hold up in courts in the USA either. There is no settled case law on this matter that I know of so no one knows for sure. But even if warrant canaries worked in some cases, I would be very surprised if there was no way to word legislation in a way that makes warrant canaries illegal.
What has been held up in court is the government's ability to prevent citizens from speaking publicly about law enforcement investigations. The FBI uses gag orders on national security su
Re: (Score:1)
I seriously doubt a warrant canary would hold up in courts in the USA either. There is no settled case law on this matter that I know of so no one knows for sure.
At least, the EFF [eff.org] thinks they are. Here are some of the quotes from that article:
"Is it legal to publish a warrant canary?
There is no law that prohibits a service provider from reporting all the legal processes that it has not received. The gag order only attaches after the ISP has been served with the gagged legal process."
"Have courts upheld compelled false speech?
No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. "
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it legal to publish a warrant canary?
There is no law that prohibits a service provider from reporting all the legal processes that it has not received. The gag order only attaches after the ISP has been served with the gagged legal process."
There may be no law that specifically prohibits that, but judges make rulings based on the intent of laws and the intent of criminals all the time. Just look to the Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act, where they used the spirit and purpose of the law as guidance when ignoring a pedantic gotcha that threatened to scuttle the whole law.
Even if such a narrow loophole did hold up in court, it seems a simple gag order stopping a site from disclosing if they have or have not received any oth
Re: (Score:2)
The law does not and cannot forbid you from saying that you haven't been served a NSL. The law can not compel you to say that you haven't been served a NSL if you have indeed been served a NSL. The freedom not to say what you don't want to say is fundamental.
First off, there is no case law on this matter so you cannot make many of the claims you are making.
Why can't the law forbid you from saying you haven't been served with an NSL? Do you think you can get around a gag order just because a journalist asks you the right questions? If you have a gag order saying you can't disclose the amount of a settlement, a journalist cannot just keep asking "was it under $100k? $500k? $1 million?", and just wait for the interviewee to stop saying "No" and start saying "I can
Odd legal repercussions (Score:1)
Okay, let me get this straight: rip off a whole nation, defraud companies out of billions and render millions homeless...CEO not even named. No-one ever tried, no convictions.
Threaten to tell someone they're being spied on. CEO gets locked up for two years.
Well, I guess we know where their priorities are. Fucking pompous ass shits, should drag them out of Parliament and hang them from the bridge. They're a disgrace to the whole country and it's people. I'm sick of them claiming the high ground while snortin
Re: (Score:2)
Threaten to tell someone they're being spied on. CEO gets locked up for two years.
This sounds like a strong motivator for CEOs to move their operations out of the UK, as a risk mitigation measure.
Possible workaround? (Score:2)
When someone is targetted for monitoring, they do not tell the person they are being monitorered, but simply advise them that the law prohibits them from telling them if they are being monitored, and lets them come to their own conclusion.
Or would simply repeating the text of the law itself constitute warning someone?
By the way, is anyone else having problems staying logged into slashdot lately? Almost every time I try to post anything, I am spontaneously logged out and told I am posting as anonymous
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of whether the government should or shouldn't be restricting companies from warning customers about government activity, if they are going to do it then the laws will be pretty broad and won't be easily dodged by semantic games like this. We already live in a world where intent and/or motive can be criminal (for better of worse), thus "teaching someone chemistry" can be illegal (in the UK at least) if the lessons were
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it bespoke and unique? Possible gov code, dont publish... never comment, is not a good way to secure local networks.
Domestic hardware, software gov ready modifications that get left in or are not removable on export systems.
How are these the same thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo became the latest company promising to alert users who it suspected were being targeted by state-sponsored attacks
Google had previously assured their users that they would be warned of any potential government spying
UK ministers want to make it a criminal offense for tech firms to warn users of requests for access to their communication data
The first two situations involve the government going after the companies' users without notifying the companies
The last situation involves the government issuing a request to the company for information.
Seem like two different things to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. What is troubling though is that law enforcement should be required to ask a court for a gag order, so that there is oversight and an opportunity to challenge it. It shouldn't be the default.
MI5 want it to be the default because they hate oversight. They argue that it takes too long etc, but it's essential. I'd rather die in a terror attack than have them run amok with this power.
As always, encrypt everything.
Re: (Score:2)
An upgrade to an always on "software" ready splitter?
New onsite hardware and a dedicated gov optical link deep into the brands systems? An in place hardware splitter.
Or a classic per person/account request for all logs...
The "access" part sounds like ongoing, collect it all gets a result and then legal requests gets started vs legal action begins the logging.
Brexit, please! (Score:1)
Hailing from somewhere else: please, take UK out of the EU until you fixed your mess.
Then come back.
Re: (Score:3)
Who the fuck would want them back?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to topple the mess the EU is as well.
Sadly: Just assume you're always being spied on (Score:2)
Canary (Score:1)
Does the law prohibit telling users when they're not being spied on?
Wait, may I hear that again? (Score:2)
So they can make that a criminal offense but things like, say, selling personal data to the highest bidder or criminal negligence when it comes to security is done with a slap on the wrist that is at worst something that becomes part of the operational cost?
Odd how they suddenly can whip out the criminal charge club against CEOs when it goes against the people they allegedly represent.
To the best of our knowledge... (Score:2)
China would be so proud! (Score:5, Insightful)
China would be so proud!
Dear ISP, is my traffic being spied on today? (Score:2)
"Dear ISP, is my traffic being monitored today?" No.
"Dear ISP, is my traffic being monitored today?" No.
"Dear ISP, is my traffic being monitored today?" We can neither confirm nor deny your traffic is being monitored today.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a breach of the order, since it is a notification of change. Don't think that the government can be confused and bamboozled by stupid kids games like this and others in these comments - if it constitutes a notification, its a notification. It doesn't have to come in the form of "I, Yahoo!, hereby notify you that we have had a warrant issued against us for your data", it simply has to be a notification.
If a company has a warrant canary in its annual statements, or on your account etc, then th
Re: (Score:2)
Liar. It is a response to a specific question, not a notification[*]. Sheesh. This criminalization specifically avoids attempting to compel you to lie, which would be grossly transparent tyranny. And you completely miss the point of a warrant canary. If the warrant canary dies, it doesn't matter what the accompanying narrative (if any) is. Anyone with a working brain would realize there is a problem even if the domain is seized and so
Worrying logical consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, thinking from a logical perspective, it makes sense to assume, by default, that we are being spied upon, that GCHQ, MI5, Mi6, NSA, CIA etc are snooping on all our internet transmissions, that all ISPs and tech companies are in cahoots with the intelligence services, and that the reason there's 'no evidence' is because of explicit legislation banning the dissemination of such evidence. Suddenly paranoia, delusions and conspiracy theories start to become sensible, rational and logical.
Re: (Score:2)
Corrollary: for communications that matter, simply layer on your own encryption that the bastards can't decrypt. That's the idea behind PGP and Enigmail.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who've been using encryption by default have been treating that as fact for years, even though we knew it likely wasn't actually the case yet. The only difference now is that they're sadly making our assumption a reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly paranoia, delusions and conspiracy theories start to become sensible, rational and logical.
Being a "conspiracy theory" doesn't automatically disqualify a theory, despite the (convenient for conspirators) meme that such theories are always false and a symptom of madness.
People organize to advance their own interests. When in conflict with others, or when their plans are otherwise likely to provoke opposition (for instance, if what they're doing is illegal and/or oppressive), and often when it is no
What will they do vs. Microsoft? (Score:1)
Microsoft to begin alerting users about suspected government snooping http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]
?
APK
P.S.=> This is all mind-boggling & imo, insane - however, this was some GOOD news (that those who favored all of this madness & lunacy are being spied on themselves & DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN IT'S TURNED ON THEM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org] )
The net result (Score:2)
How exactly? (Score:2)
Similar to the recent 48 hour whatapp injunction in Brazil (which was overruled after 12 hours), trying to punish a company offering a free service for not complying to evidential requests will only end up punishing the populus i.e. VOTERS.
I can see that issuing an interception warrant across borders is difficult, but mandating a deviation to accepted law of the targeted nation will only end up getting your warrants overruled.
Ineffective, and hugely invasive. (Score:2)
It is pretty clear to me that the government simply wants to watch anybody, at any time, and for any reason that it arbitrarily chooses, without having any accountability to anyone.
Clearly, if one feels they have any reason to even *suspect* that they are being monitored, then they might as well consider that as a sufficient basis to carry on their actions as if they actually *were* being monitored, which effectively amounts to doing what they would do if they had actually been alerted they were being mo
Warrant canary to get around censorship? (Score:1)
Could a warrant canary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) be used to get around such gagging? Yahoo, MS, Google, etc., could have a page that you can go to that either says "You are not the subject of a state-sponsored attack via us" or is blank. When it's blank you can assume that the spooks are prying. You could even sign up for regular emails stating the same. When those emails stop you know to go check your page.
Re: (Score:2)
Those were applications. Apps are like mini-applications, sometimes no code even just URLs wrapped up in XML. Convenient on clumsy devices where you can't manage a bookmark list or search for web sites.
Re: (Score:2)
App is just a shorthand for Application, so there's no real difference if you look at it closely.
Re: (Score:1)
True and to join in with the AC below...
See, yes, you and I shortened "applications" to "apps" all those years ago. We were "installing apps" and "writing apps." We were "working with apps" and "managing apps."
Alas, today, they've gone and changed the common usage definition and what we call apps are now referred to by their full name - namely applications. Some of us are a bit more specific and we'll call them "phone apps" or "mobile apps." I think we're in the minority.
This appears to happen quite a bit.
Re: Use APPS, not LUDDITE services! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, heads of companies have a big shield against facing personal criminal charges. Little things like oil spills, financial meltdowns, etc, no one from a corporation goes to jail.
Generally speaking the laws under which corporations are created deliberately generate a "corporate veil" that makes the corporation, as a corporation, liable for its actions, but the people who invested in and operate it are shielded from this - UNLESS they DELIBERATELY engage in CRIMINAL behavior (at which point t
Re: (Score:2)