A Safe Snowy Haven No Doubt

[Dr. Righteous]

Wish we could Dislike posts around here. This is one of the most asinine things I think I've read on this forum. Everything about it is wrong, flat out.

You are delusional.
A smart phones are a "jack of all trades but master of none".
The pix quality as good as a REAL camera/camcorder? Absolutely not. Good for what is it; sure if that is all you care about.
GPS, I give it a OK, but I've always found a dedicated GPS better. It is a compromise.
PHONE. YES, you better have a cell tower in range or forget it. That is why it is called a CELL PHONE.
Clock? OK< a cell phone is a better time piece than a watch. A big chunky thing you have keep in your pocket and have to charge regularly. Wake up please.
SMS text is what it is. BUT, I would qualify that by saying if you use it like I do; typing complete coherent sentences instead of gibberish short hand it leave much to be desired.
Sound quality; what I was aiming at was the tinny sound you get from the cell phone speakers. Via head phones or bluetooth , it sounds fine.

 

[lcpiper]

So much work to press enter after a few sentences, so much work to put effort into organization.

It's called a paragraph.

Others have no problems following his comments, he used proper punctuation as far as I could tell from a casual read. It's not a term paper or a thesis, are you really going to continue to argue this?

OK Guys, all posts in [H] Forum must be proofread by BloodyIron before they will be registered as valid comments OK?

He volunteered and we should all thank him

 

[NoOther]

You're arguing that because people didn't get punished, it wasn't illegal. That's not how legal / illegal works, and it only means that the US gov't system is corrupt and turns a blind eye to its own offences.

So, anyway, yeah, it was ruled to be illegal. You asked, you got an answer. I don't care for your goalpost moving, especially since as I stated my use of "offence" was primarily meant to indicate the Snowden leaks revealed moral offences being committed by the US gov't. But at the same time, yes, there were legal offences, as well. Rationalizing it doesn't change that fact.

There's probably tons of other illegal stuff to be found from the Snowden leaks. For example, it was illegal for the US to wiretap Angela Merkel's phone:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html

And the NSA reportedly broke the law thousands of times by violating privacy rules:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...10e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

Just because the NSA doesn't get prosecuted doesn't mean that what it's doing is legitimate. There is a severe lack of accountability and even application of the law in the US, especially when it comes to the government. The US gov't only prosecutes when it serves some ideological goal or vendetta. Often, the US government chooses to just ignore the law, like when Obama said of prosecuting Bush for what were indisputably illegal actions that he preferred to look forward, and not backwards. I'm sure that many other criminals wish they could also avoid the law simply by saying the same thing.

I did not move any goalposts, legality with no true oversight is just vapor, and in your last paragraph in this section you prove my point. Plus if you read what happened after they originally deemed it illegal, they walked back their ruling to say it was allowed under certain pretenses. Also you stating that Obama was looking forward is naive. Obama was looking for a way to continue getting the same information, but by skirting the legality issue once again. Obama did nothing to stop the collection of data, in fact Obama exponentially expanded the data gathering of citizens and non-citizens using the ACA. That information is much more private and much more damaging to individuals.

Snowden's have undeniably resulted in a massive awareness increases, of all sorts.

http://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/#qB0jZrK73Pqd
https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-07-09/17-disturbing-things-snowden-has-taught-us-so-far
bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/nsa-leaks-us-bugging-european-allies
http://www.zdnet.com/article/legal-loopholes-unrestrained-nsa-surveillance-on-americans/

The revelation of PRISM on its own was humongous and has resulted in many major tech companies improving their security, and many people re-evaluating which companies they're willing to let their data pass through the servers of. It has also resulted in many countries being able to better secure themselves against the US, which is a good thing, and given them the fodder to rebuff US state hypocrisy and arrogance, which also is a good thing.

The revelations that the US was wiretapping Angela Merkel's phone surely was important to the German government, as would have been the details that the US is hacking thousands of Chinese companies.

A lot of what the public now expects to be common practice by the US and other governments was, before the Snowden leaks, regarded as conspiracy theory, and not easily entertained in online discussions without seeing the ideas and claims mocked. So, the leaks have certainly transformed and matured public perception.

And there are still new revelations being discovered from his leaks.

Newsflash, all of that information was already known by a large portion of the world before Snowden released anything. Sure the average joe has more awareness now, but there isn't a lot the average joe can or is doing to change anything. As for the revelations of the US tapping Angela Merkel's phone, the truth is the Germans already knew that. It wasn't a revelation to them. The Germans also tap the US ambassador's phones as do many other countries. As for these things being considered conspiracy theories, that isn't true at all. Again, perhaps to the average joe that was the case, but again, the average joe has no real say in any of this stuff either. So basically all this did is make a lot more of the average joes angry, but given them nothing they can really do about it, but try to put up a lot of roadblocks to situations they don't even fully comprehend.

Please, spare us the government propaganda. 'The government invades your privacy without your permission and lies to you while doing things you don't want them to to keep you safe and for your own good' is ridiculous BS, not even worth humouring. The mindset of those that think way while working in those programs is lowest-common-denominator, Us vs Them thinking, which is far more emotion, inferiority complex, and paranoia driven than sound judgment-driven.


The Snowden leaks have been huge, in the information they have brought to light, in the response they have caused in technology, and in the perception calibration they've triggered among US citizens and people all around the world regarding the US government and cyber-espionage. To deny that is to be in denial. And to argue against that is to play apologist for conduct which is, at its core, unscrupulous.

Exactly what am I saying that is government propaganda? That what Snowden did is treason? It is by very legal definition treason. You cannot play the hypocrite here and say the NSA was doing something illegal and then give Snowden a pass. I am sorry but that is just wrong. Also I base my thoughts on the mass of information Snowden stole, he didn't just whistleblow on information gathering programs, he stole information on a lot of stuff not even related to it. So no, he was not being altruistic.

You can be upset about information gathering and you can lobby for a better way to secure the citizenry, but perhaps the best approach is to find a better way to do that. I also am not fond of that solution, but I also see the reality of the situation. Harrowing Snowden as a hero is a complete farce. He simply was not a hero. His history and his actions before, during, and after show that he is a dysfunctional individual that seems to care more about attention than anything else.

 

[NoOther]

Anything worth reading, will be parsed.

That is patently false and is about the worst excuse you could use for being incredibly lazy honestly. It only keeps you more in the dark than the average person.

 

[Mut1ny]

You are delusional.

Oh am I?

The pix quality as good as a REAL camera/camcorder? Absolutely not. Good for what is it; sure if that is all you care about.

Compared to what? A standalone camera that cost $1,000+? Please, if you knew anything about current camera's, even in the past few years, you'd know that cellphone cameras are quite impressive. Sure, they're not 100MP, sure they don't do 4K at 120fps...but the detail level, color reproduction, noise level, contrast, etc of phones these days far outweigh even professional cameras from 10 years ago. Hell, most people these days even use phones for production level work. Are they limited? Of course, there's only so much they can squeeze in there but what they can is certainly no slouch.

GPS, I give it a OK, but I've always found a dedicated GPS better. It is a compromise.

I've never found a difference. If anything cellphones are better now due to better hardware than most years old GPS units.

PHONE. YES, you better have a cell tower in range or forget it. That is why it is called a CELL PHONE.

How is this different than any other tech? Landline phone? BETTER HAVE A ACTIVE LINE AND ACCOUNT WITH SOMEONE! Oh no...the humanity! Again, unless you're in bumfuck no where you'll have at least voice most of the time. If not, where do you have a landline or other reliable communication access? A satphone? Smoke signals? Your point here has none.

Clock? OK< a cell phone is a better time piece than a watch. A big chunky thing you have keep in your pocket and have to charge regularly. Wake up please.

A clock that can set multiple alarms, do smarthome things at certain times, stopwatch, timer, etc. Let's see even a Rolex do half that lol. Again, stupid comparison. If people want a watch, they'll own one. I have a smartwatch, so the best of both worlds. OH YOU GOTTA CHARGE IT! I don't care. Doesn't bother me, it's wireless, no different than taking off any other watch.

SMS text is what it is. BUT, I would qualify that by saying if you use it like I do; typing complete coherent sentences instead of gibberish short hand it leave much to be desired.

Use a better touch keyboard that remembers your mishaps better. I rarely have issues with my phone with commonly used words. Also, BlackBerrys exist, keyboard attachments for iPhone and Samsung, etc.

Sound quality; what I was aiming at was the tinny sound you get from the cell phone speakers. Via head phones or bluetooth , it sounds fine.

What do you expect? When has ANYTHING EVER as small and thin as a phone SOUNDED GOOD?! Goddamn dude, I'm delusional? My LG V10 also has a Sabre DAC in it and outperforms ANY sub-$300-400 DAP I've owned. Such shitty quality, huh?

 

[Delicieuxz]

I did not move any goalposts, legality with no true oversight is just vapor

A criminal act that isn't punished isn't a crime? So, if somebody steals from a department store, and isn't caught, they didn't commit the crime of stealing? No, that's not how things work. If it was, then government corruption wouldn't be government corruption, so long as the corrupt government didn't do anything about it. What you're arguing is like saying that evil justifies itself.

Also you stating that Obama was looking forward is naive. Obama was looking for a way to continue getting the same information, but by skirting the legality issue once again. Obama did nothing to stop the collection of data, in fact Obama exponentially expanded the data gathering of citizens and non-citizens using the ACA.

You've misinterpreted what I wrote. I didn't say that Obama was looking forward and not carrying on Bush's actions. I said that Obama excused himself from holding Bush accountable for crimes by saying that he chooses to look forwards instead of backwards. Obama turned a blind eye to criminality, but that didn't make the illegal actions of the Bush regime not illegal. Obama was irresponsible and made himself complicit in Bush's crimes.

Newsflash, all of that information was already known by a large portion of the world before Snowden released anything. Sure the average joe has more awareness now, but there isn't a lot the average joe can or is doing to change anything.

The fact is that the Snowden leaks have increased awareness greatly, and you've just admitted that. Whether people can do something about it is neither here nor there, and claiming the awareness is futile due to a lack of options is trying to rationalize the acknowledgement that your argument that Snowden's leaks haven't increased awareness is false.

And I would say that the awareness counts for a lot, and gets people thinking about where they want society to be headed, and leads to new protections, new mindsets, and puts pressure on government to pursue a better path - even if not instantly, all incidents accrue and add up to a decision by a society.

As for the revelations of the US tapping Angela Merkel's phone, the truth is the Germans already knew that. It wasn't a revelation to them.

And your confidence in asserting that comes from where?

As for these things being considered conspiracy theories, that isn't true at all. Again, perhaps to the average joe that was the case, but again, the average joe has no real say in any of this stuff either.

These things were indeed considered conspiracy theories. I know, because I'd discussed them many times in the past, and there would typically be people calling tin foil, paranoia, or whatever. Those comments and their influential power progressively faded throughout the Snowden, and other leaks.

So basically all this did is make a lot more of the average joes angry, but given them nothing they can really do about it, but try to put up a lot of roadblocks to situations they don't even fully comprehend.

Like you're trying to put up roadblocks to the recognition of how much the Snowden leaks have impacted public awareness?

Your constant extreme downplaying of the influence and purposefulness that Snowden's revelations have had reeks of a nihilism. Maybe you just want to boast and say you already knew these things were happening. Good for you. The world, at large, didn't, and now it does. Whether you knew it beforehand or not is not the determining factor of whether the Snowden leaks have had an impact. They have, hugely.

Exactly what am I saying that is government propaganda? That what Snowden did is treason? It is by very legal definition treason.

The rationalization to dismiss merit that you're presenting resembles a 'don't question the government's actions' / 'the government is truth' mindset. It doesn't appear to be productive, or developing towards something better, but rather seems to oppose any perspectives that would accept learning from experience.

Regarding the claim that what Snowden did is treason, that is very much up for debate. It could be said that the NSA's actions against US citizens, many of which were, and surely still are illegal, are treason. And I think it can easily be argued that what Snowden did was in service of his country and it's people. You're challenging the definition of what the US is. Many would say the US is not whichever regime is currently in power, and that the US is not meant to be a corrupt police state that violates its own citizens' rights and acts arbitrarily outside of the rule of law.

You cannot play the hypocrite here and say the NSA was doing something illegal and then give Snowden a pass. I am sorry but that is just wrong.

Not at all. The same logic as what you've presenting would be like saying, 'you can't play the hypocrite and say the Nazi party was doing something bad, and then give Jews a pass concerning not turning themselves in to the Nazis in accordance with their anti-Jew laws'.

That obviously doesn't pass a common sense filter. Law is only good when it serves good.

Also, in this thread, you've tried to dismiss any merit to what Snowden did, while, in futility, try to reframe the US government's illegal actions as non-illegal, because the US gov't didn't punish itself for its illegal actions. So, by trying to give the US government a free pass while simultaneously trying to making it sound like Snowden did some horrible thing with his act of civil disobedience to expose US government criminality and actions against US citizens, you're being hypocritical in doing exactly what you're now accusing me of doing.

Also I base my thoughts on the mass of information Snowden stole, he didn't just whistleblow on information gathering programs, he stole information on a lot of stuff not even related to it. So no, he was not being altruistic.

The premise does not equal the conclusion, there. I don't know Snowden's exact mindset, but I expect his act of civil disobedience was not easy to do in a perfectly calculated manner. He probably could tell there were many wrong things being done by the US government, and so did what he believed was providing the resources to expose much of it. He probably didn't go through all the information he gathered with a fine comb.

You can be upset about information gathering and you can lobby for a better way to secure the citizenry, but perhaps the best approach is to find a better way to do that. I also am not fond of that solution, but I also see the reality of the situation. Harrowing Snowden as a hero is a complete farce. He simply was not a hero. His history and his actions before, during, and after show that he is a dysfunctional individual that seems to care more about attention than anything else.

I'm sure Snowden would much rather be safe and at home than have attention. Again, this habit of reducing all details into some cynical sneer that makes it easy to dismiss and detest seems to come from some nihilistic outlook.

 

[lcpiper]

Oh am I?...........A clock that can set multiple alarms, do smarthome things at certain times, stopwatch, timer, etc. Let's see even a Rolex do half that lol. Again, stupid comparison. If people want a watch, they'll own one. I have a smartwatch, so the best of both worlds. OH YOU GOTTA CHARGE IT! I don't care. Doesn't bother me, it's wireless, no different than taking off any other watch...................

No way, you ain't dissn on my G-Shock maaaannnnn

It's solar powered, atomic clocked, bright as all fuck in the dark, alarms, timers forward and back, looks great, never gets left in the car, good to 10 BAR wet, and if I slapped you with this fucker it'd knock yo ass out !

Stainless steel bitch lol


Do that shit with your candy assed plastic Phone

 

[NoOther]

A criminal act that isn't punished isn't a crime? So, if somebody steals from a department store, and isn't caught, they didn't commit the crime of stealing? No, that's not how things work. If it was, then government corruption wouldn't be government corruption, so long as the corrupt government didn't do anything about it. What you're arguing is like saying that evil justifies itself.

What I am saying is whether it is a crime or not, or illegal or not means nothing if there is no enforcement. Tell me what prevents the government from doing something if there is no punishment for it? So going even further from your example, if someone steals something from the store and is caught, but then nothing happens to them and then later there it is determined that they can keep doing that activity given a small change, then what is preventing them from stealing? Nothing. I made no assertion about evil justifying itself, what I am saying is what is being prevented? Nothing. This ties directly into your assertion that there is more awareness and thus more oversight. Well, quite frankly there isn't. If they can keep collecting information and nothing happens to them, then what has truly changed? Nothing.

You've misinterpreted what I wrote. I didn't say that Obama was looking forward and not carrying on Bush's actions. I said that Obama excused himself from holding Bush accountable for crimes by saying that he chooses to look forwards instead of backwards. Obama turned a blind eye to criminality, but that didn't make the illegal actions of the Bush regime not illegal. Obama was irresponsible and made himself complicit in Bush's crimes.

I think you missed my point entirely there. My point was that Obama even furthered those crimes by collecting far more information and including far more damaging information of citizens. Even worse, he continuously used executive privilege to block transparency into what he was doing. He was one of the least transparent president's in recent decades after running on a platform of being more transparent. So not only was he complicit, but he fully embraced a larger scale collection scheme and then did even more to hide actions.

The fact is that the Snowden leaks have increased awareness greatly, and you've just admitted that. Whether people can do something about it is neither here nor there, and claiming the awareness is futile due to a lack of options is trying to rationalize the acknowledgement that your argument that Snowden's leaks haven't increased awareness is false.

Awareness for what and to what end? How is whether people can do anything about it neither here nor there? Action has everything to do with this entire scenario. The problem is that Snowden released information not only on what was being done, but also how it was being done on more than just information gathering. That information is now available to large entities like Governments and Corporations who can do something and now have a template on how to do it effectively. So it both undermines the US government's abilities, while now giving other governments and corporations the ability to do more.

And I would say that the awareness counts for a lot, and gets people thinking about where they want society to be headed, and leads to new protections, new mindsets, and puts pressure on government to pursue a better path - even if not instantly, all incidents accrue and add up to a decision by a society.

What protections? What pressure? Again, all this was already being done before stuff even came out. You seem to think that the government was acting in a complete vacuum prior, but it was not. The very fact that there was already legislation on the books declaring these actions as illegal is proof of that. What additional pressure or protections do you see now?

And your confidence in asserting that comes from where?

Research.

These things were indeed considered conspiracy theories. I know, because I'd discussed them many times in the past, and there would typically be people calling tin foil, paranoia, or whatever. Those comments and their influential power progressively faded throughout the Snowden, and other leaks.

You know because of your limited personal experience. I have a completely different experience. There are still people who say that the holocaust is a hoax and anyone saying otherwise are just conspiracy theories.

Like you're trying to put up roadblocks to the recognition of how much the Snowden leaks have impacted public awareness?

Your constant extreme downplaying of the influence and purposefulness that Snowden's revelations have had reeks of a nihilism. Maybe you just want to boast and say you already knew these things were happening. Good for you. The world, at large, didn't, and now it does. Whether you knew it beforehand or not is not the determining factor of whether the Snowden leaks have had an impact. They have, hugely.

I am not sure you know what nihilism means... Asserting that something without recourse is not preventable is not nihilism, it is realism. If you say something is a crime, but do nothing to either prevent or punish the crime, then there will continue to be crime. Awareness that the crime has been committed does nothing to thwart it. Awareness coupled with action will. My assertion is that there was already awareness by those who could do something about it, and things had already been done to do something about it. When the information was leaked it was actually counterproductive in some ways. Instead of enforcing more regulation, they created more loopholes. And then it gave a template for other large organizations and governments to follow to do the same.

The rationalization to dismiss merit that you're presenting resembles a 'don't question the government's actions' / 'the government is truth' mindset. It doesn't appear to be productive, or developing towards something better, but rather seems to oppose any perspectives that would accept learning from experience.

Regarding the claim that what Snowden did is treason, that is very much up for debate. It could be said that the NSA's actions against US citizens, many of which were, and surely still are illegal, are treason. And I think it can easily be argued that what Snowden did was in service of his country and it's people. You're challenging the definition of what the US is. Many would say the US is not whichever regime is currently in power, and that the US is not meant to be a corrupt police state that violates its own citizens' rights and acts arbitrarily outside of the rule of law.

I am sorry, but what? That is just in your interpretation of what I am writing. My answers are specifically relegated to Snowden's leaks and the outcome. Please quote directly where I say one should not question the government or the government is truth. The quote you took there specifically regarded Snowden being a traitor, which he is by legal definition. How is the legal definition of treason up for debate? Again, Snowden stole far more than just the information on information gathering. He did not limit what he stole. He then shared that information to outside sources. Not to mention he broke several laws and regulations that he specifically signed to uphold under penalty of treason. He did not uphold those. Where is the debate? If it was merely limited to the NSA data gathering, then you may be able to provide leniency, but there is no debate on whether it is treason. And yet again, what he stole was not limited to the NSA data gathering.

Not at all. The same logic as what you've presenting would be like saying, 'you can't play the hypocrite and say the Nazi party was doing something bad, and then give Jews a pass concerning not turning themselves in to the Nazis in accordance with their anti-Jew laws'.

That obviously doesn't pass a common sense filter. Law is only good when it serves good.

What you are saying is not even close to the same thing at all. You are giving Snowden a pass for breaking a law of stealing a ton of government information and then giving it away to other parties. But saying that is not a crime. Whereas the government gathering data from telecomms (who are already gathering your information) is a crime. Both are crimes by legal definition.

Also, in this thread, you've tried to dismiss any merit to what Snowden did, while, in futility, try to reframe the US government's illegal actions as non-illegal, because the US gov't didn't punish itself for its illegal actions. So, by trying to give the US government a free pass while simultaneously trying to making it sound like Snowden did some horrible thing with his act of civil disobedience to expose US government criminality and actions against US citizens, you're being hypocritical in doing exactly what you're now accusing me of doing.

I haven't framed the NSA's actions as legal, I said that the legality is moot when it is not enforced. Basically I am implying that not enough is being done to change the status quo. Holding Snowden up as some hero is farcical. Nothing has come of anything he has done. Nor was what he did altruistic. Had he specifically mined information only pertinent to the data gathering effort and then handled the dissemination better, perhaps you could say what he did was just, but hero? Seriously, what was heroic about it? So it should be okay for any government contractor to start mining government information and transferring it offsite on the offchance it contains some information that may shed light on illegal activities? That is a terrible premise.

The premise does not equal the conclusion, there. I don't know Snowden's exact mindset, but I expect his act of civil disobedience was not easy to do in a perfectly calculated manner. He probably could tell there were many wrong things being done by the US government, and so did what he believed was providing the resources to expose much of it. He probably didn't go through all the information he gathered with a fine comb.

Exactly, how can you consider his actions altruistic if he wasn't specifically getting information related to the topic he wanted to expose? How is that doing due diligence? How is exposing sensitive information on completely legal means of information defense of citizens being a hero? Much of what he did put the country at more risk. So how is that good for the citizens of the country? And to explore his mindset you can explore his history where he continually lies and makes up stuff. Even today he continually misspeaks.

I'm sure Snowden would much rather be safe and at home than have attention. Again, this habit of reducing all details into some cynical sneer that makes it easy to dismiss and detest seems to come from some nihilistic outlook.

Would he? He has had that chance a number of times now, but traded it in for popularity. I am not reducing things into a cynical sneer, I am taking things as they are. Again, I do not think you understand what nihilism is.

 

[realdeadman]

DANGM it. I want to fight too!!!!!

**TOO LONG AT BOTTOM! IMPORTANT!

A $700-850+ cell phone cam is not as good as same price Camera only(yet). Nobody is saying that it is I think.

What should be said is: "The tech in today's mid to top-o-line cell phone is GOOD ENOUGH for all the kids today" They are young, dumb, and inexperienced with my gen's superior analogue tech , mag tapes, vacuum tube amps, CRTS, high end DSLR, et all

However, MY 2015 Cell phone nexus 6 cam was better in every way except ZOOMING than my 2005 Sony cam (msrp $500ish)

AND infinitely more CONVENIENT

And my Samsung s8+ is better still, except for zooms. And you can get a lens for that!

Most everyone uses Blue tooth/head phone that are low up to very high quality, better than a tiny tiny crappy phone speaker.

My phone GPS is right, never used a GPS only.

Very few people need ATOM-clock accuracy

Phone calls? What is that?

Everyone's phone, with a little knowledge, can use several types of CELL, or WIFI, or even Bluetooth/NFC* to make internet/SMS/MMS/voice calls

Their is SO much tech in today's phones, it blows my mind.

I just purchased a $15 dollar USB DTV thingy. When plugged in to my phone, makes it a Software Defined Radio Scanner!!

Any radiowave from 27 to 2000mega-hurts!!! Crazy. While it is most certainly not as good as an $700 uniden scanner,(or a $100 scanner) it is "just-good-enough" until my police go digital!

My S8+ is going in the trash in 2 years unless I have some use for it. (I won't be using Haven though)

--------------------------------------------------------

The biggest point no one has said: Like small stores losing to Walmart, people will USE what is cheapest, most convenient instead of a better, more expensive, even slightly more trouble device/solution.

I worked at Radio Shack as a kid.

It took me a while to understand a basic truth, people are lazy(in the sense that they want the problem solved quick and easy) and don't really care about having the best top of the line device/solution, when a "just-good-enough" is a dollar cheaper at Walmart.

I could tell them "Walmart is further away, no help or service, bad quality, etc" til I am blue in the face. "It is .50 cent cheaper, I am going to walmart" was always the reply

*I think
***Edit for clarity, grimmer and speeling!
****Corrected more spelling. I am tired, so I might miss a word missuse, forgive me!

 

[NoOther]

Everyone's phone, with a little knowledge, can use several types of CELL, or WIFI, or even Bluetooth/NFC* to make internet/SMS/MMS/voice calls

Their is SO much tech in today's phones, it blows my mind.

I just purchased a $15 dollar USB DTV thingy. When plugged in to my phone, makes it a Software Defined Radio Scanner!!

Any radiowave from 27 to 2000mega-hurts!!! Crazy. While it is most certainly not as good as an $700 uniden scanner,(or a $100 scanner) it is "just-good-enough" until my police go digital!

The SDR attachment is pretty cool, I have worked peripherally with SDRs for a few years now. We actually had some tablet interfaces designed to interact with the various SDRs we used.

The biggest point no one has said: Like small stores losing to Walmart, people will USE what is cheapest, most convenient instead of a better, more expensive, even slightly more trouble device/solution.

I worked at Radio Shack as a kid.

It took me a while to understand a basic truth, people are lazy(in the sense that they want the problem solved quick and easy) and don't really care about having the best top of the line device/solution, when a "just-good-enough" is a dollar cheaper at Walmart.

I could tell them "Walmart is further away, no help or service, bad quality, etc" til I am blue in the face. "It is .50 cent cheaper, I am going to walmart" was always the reply

I guess that depends on where you live or the particular social class there. Around where I live and the environments I am in, everyone is more interested in the better more advanced phones and tech. Although I certainly have friends and family that subscribe to the "whatever is cheapest" philosophy as well. Then there is my father who will pay too much to have old ruggedized flip phone tech because he doesn't like the fancy new phones...

But back on the topic of Haven, the tech in Haven isn't actually that new, there has been stuff like that around for awhile now. I have worked with similar tech now for quite a few years. The problem is the information you are gathering can literally be used for anything, good or bad. So the real question is would you rather have more information out there about yourself that can be used for even more nefarious purposes? Or would you rather have less information out there and have to be be more informed and aware about your own security?

 

[realdeadman]

Yes, there is always gonna be people who want elite stuff, but most people just want their problem fixed cheap and easy.

I agonized for months deciding which phone to get from April (my update date) to September......I decided on a Note 8, but I had to get an S8+ because the surgery on my Nexus 6 failed....lol (The note release was 1 week away, but I had to have a phone)

But if there had been something (non apple) better that fit my needs, I would have gotten it.

 

[BloodyIron]

Because I'm a polarising individual. I've come to accept it, and you seem to be upset by it.

I am not sorry.

Hypocrite much? There's a reason you're always on defense in these forums.