Everywhere else on the planet, in order for a device to be cleared for sale, that specific model undergoes heavy testing for regulatory compliance by a government agency.
"The specs said it was fine" is literally never going to be a valid legal defense, and making that argument will get you laughed out of court. Either it's actually certified to be used as you're allowing it to be used, or you get the hammer dropped on you, as you should.
The outcome of your actions isn't in a theoretical world.
You absolutely would be behaving unethically In that scenario, because you took an action that you knew, with absolute certainty, could only result in either no impact at all, or in making a monster president. There is no theoretical outcome where your action is capable of doing good, and there is a potential outcome where your action does extreme harm.
I've started the habit of using spoiler tags to collapse tangents when I go overboard at times. It makes it easier for me to scroll past, so I'd assume it's also easier for people who aren't actively engaging with my posts to deal with.
I did read the article. Checking is not and should not be their responsibility.
The only legitimate way to check is to do actual, intensive, independent testing of every device in question, specific to your country's regulations. Spec sheets are not a valid approach to verifying that a device will work.
Regulatory compliance of hardware is not, and should not be, the responsibility of the service provider. It's the responsibility of the manufacturer to have their hardware certified basically everywhere.
Frankly, the rules shouldn't even allow providers to make that determination. They should either be certified to meet the requirements by an independent agency, or have providers be prohibited from allowing them.
The idea was to prevent people from mistakenly believing that phones were fully working, only to realise they were unable to make emergency calls when the crucial moment came.
Australians with older 4G phones may also be caught out because of the way the phones are configured.
It is up to the telcos to work out which phones are affected, notify the owners, block their phones, and help make other arrangements such as low- or no-cost replacement phones.
However, as Telstra and Optus noted during a Senate inquiry into the shutdown, telecom companies are unable to tell which individual devices suffer from this problem unless have they sold them.
I'm not saying it's not partly on the providers, but validating that a bunch of obscure phones that aren't sold in your country meet new regulatory requirements is not as easy as you're making it out to be.
The crazy part is the "stripped down" was still relatively modest. She was in underwear and bra, but they covered a hell of a lot more than most people wear to the beach in a lot of the world.
Yes. Exactly identically to them spending money on DRM despite an obscenely strong body of work showing that DRM doesn't serve any purpose in any context. It's pure theater.
I get bodily autonomy and why it should be a firm line you don't cross (despite the same people thinking you should spend eternity in prison if you don't want to be an incubator for 9 months or smoke a plant), but I really wish we could charge all the people that deliberately infected people with Covid by going in public without getting a simple safe shot with manslaughter.
It doesn't meaningfully impact the rate of cheating at all. You're making the deluded assumption that it does something despite a complete absence of evidence to support it. It's a complete fabrication with no connection in any way to the real world.
It is not security. It does not in any way resemble security. It's pure theater that catastrophically compromises the actual security of everything it touches.
That's fine, and in principle I understand the threat, but I think there are plenty of security experts who choose to just use cloudflare because some of the services they provide genuinely require their scale and they have a pretty steady history of making very measured decisions about where they need to leverage their position to improve security.
There's never been any indication that they're collecting more than they need to or exploiting it beyond the scope of the service they provide, and several scenarios where they have refused to cooperate with governments trying to do invasive things. I absolutely think "moderately secure" still applies to traffic routed through cloudflare.
Seriously, clearing snow isn't just for your visibility. It's illegal here (and presumably other places) to leave any snow at all on your car because it will come off and is very likely to affect the visibility of another driver at high speeds.
You can't give a deranged dictatorship global censorship authority.
That keeps the entire planet from access to information.