Showing posts tagged apple
(Reblogged from donthatethegeek)
Share/Bookmark
(Reblogged from tldrwikipedia)
Share/Bookmark
I don’t care if it’s legal. It’s wrong. You don’t get to choose the tax rate you pay. These companies shouldn’t either.

Obama calls out American companies that use inversion, a legal tax loophole which allows businesses to merger with foreign companies or relocate their corporate headquarters (on paper) to other countries to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes

Read more


Share/Bookmark
(Reblogged from paxmachina)
Share/Bookmark

HA! Good on Dre! Not even Macklemore can fuck this up #NWA #rapStrikeBack #straightOuttaCompton #returnOfTheOG

(Reblogged from orangieporangiepuddingpie)
Share/Bookmark
Overall, the 288 companies in the study paid a mere 19.4 percent of their profits in corporate income taxes—far below the 35 percent rate on the books that Republican politicians use to incessantly complain that U.S. corporations are overtaxed.
 
The unwillingness of companies to fork over their fair share has consequences for all of us—especially in these hard times of fiscal cliffs and sequestrations. The 288 profitable corporations studied by Citizens for Tax Justice enjoyed tax subsidies to the tune of a whopping $362 billion from 2008 to 2012. This is $362 billion that could have been instead spent on education, health care, and social services for the betterment of all of us.
 
And with all this tax-dodging, the burden of running the federal treasury has shifted to you and me.
 
“Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s,” says the report. “In fiscal 2012, corporate taxes paid for a mere 7 percent of the federal government’s expenses.”
 
One of the more interesting revelations in the report is how corporations are masters at using arcane breaks to avoid paying any taxes at all. Take the deduction that companies get on stock options, in which they’re able to subtract from their taxes the difference between the amount employees pay for a company’s shares and the face value. Facebook used this one deduction to avoid paying any federal income tax at all in 2012 on a billion dollars of profit.
(Reblogged from reagan-was-a-horrible-president)
Share/Bookmark
magdolenelives:

"Donald Face" by Fabio Valle. Snow White can never resist an Apple.

magdolenelives:

"Donald Face" by Fabio Valle. Snow White can never resist an Apple.

(Source: fabvalle.deviantart.com)


Share/Bookmark

Apple’s Fingerprint ID May Mean You Can’t ‘Take the Fifth’

(by @marciahofmann)

There’s a lot of talk around biometric authentication since Apple introduced its newest iPhone, which will let users unlock their device with a fingerprint. Given Apple’s industry-leading position, it’s probably not a far stretch to expect this kind of authentication to take off. Some even argue that Apple’s move is a death knell for authenticators based on what a user knows (like passwords and PIN numbers).

While there’s a great deal of discussion around the pros and cons of fingerprint authentication — from the hackability of the technique to the reliability of readers — no one’s focusing on the legal effects of moving from PINs to fingerprints.

Because the constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” may not apply when it comes to biometric-based fingerprints (things that reflect who we are) as opposed to memory-based passwords and PINs (things we need to know and remember).

The privilege against self-incrimination is an important check on the government’s ability to collect evidence directly from a witness. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Fifth Amendment broadly applies not only during a criminal prosecution, but also to any other proceeding “civil or criminal, formal or informal,” where answers might tend to incriminate us. It’s a constitutional guarantee deeply rooted in English law dating back to the 1600s, when it was used to protect people from being tortured by inquisitors to force them to divulge information that could be used against them.

For the privilege to apply, however, the government must try to compel a person to make a “testimonial” statement that would tend to incriminate him or her. When a person has a valid privilege against self-incrimination, nobody — not even a judge — can force the witness to give that information to the government.

But a communication is “testimonial” only when it reveals the contents of your mind. We can’t invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesn’t reveal anything you know. It’s not testimonial.

Take this hypothetical example coined by the Supreme Court: If the police demand that you give them the key to a lockbox that happens to contain incriminating evidence, turning over the key wouldn’t be testimonial if it’s just a physical act that doesn’t reveal anything you know.

However, if the police try to force you to divulge the combination to a wall safe, your response would reveal the contents of your mind — and so would implicate the Fifth Amendment. (If you’ve written down the combination on a piece of paper and the police demand that you give it to them, that may be a different story.)

To invoke Fifth Amendment protection, there may be a difference between things we have or are — and things we know.

The important feature about PINs and passwords is that they’re generally something we know (unless we forget them, of course). These memory-based authenticators are the type of fact that benefit from strong Fifth Amendment protection should the government try to make us turn them over against our will. Indeed, last year a federal appeals court held that a man could not be forced by the government to decrypt data.

But if we move toward authentication systems based solely on physical tokens or biometrics — things we have or things we are, rather than things we remember — the government could demand that we produce them without implicating anything we know. Which would make it less likely that a valid privilege against self-incrimination would apply.

Biometric authentication may make it easier for normal, everyday users to protect the data on their phones. But as wonderful as technological innovation is, it sometimes creates unintended consequences — including legal ones. If Apple’s move leads us to abandon knowledge-based authentication altogether, we risk inadvertently undermining the legal rights we currently enjoy under the Fifth Amendment.

Here’s an easy fix: give users the option to unlock their phones with a fingerprint plus something the user knows.


Share/Bookmark

azspot:

Steve Jobs Personally Ordered All Apple Ads To Be Removed From Fox News

image

Even though Steve Jobs had a solid working relationship with News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, it’s no secret that Steve Jobs hated Fox News. In fact, in Walter Isaacon’s authorized biography, Steve Jobs said that “Fox has become an incredibly destructive force in our society.”
Rather than associate Apple’s brand with Fox News’, Steve Jobs decided to personally order all of Apple’s ads to be removed from Fox News.
(Reblogged from azspot)
Share/Bookmark
Corporations are the only reason the tax code is so complicated in the first place. Those offshore loopholes didn’t get carved out by poor people. Our tax code is purposefully complex…
Jon Stewart on Apple’s tax issues. (via playanon)
(Reblogged from kristinacolbert)
Share/Bookmark

fuckyeahfeminists:

Bloomberg Business Week published an interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook on Thursday morning. In the interview Cook said his company really valued “diversity with a capital D.”

But what kind of diversity? Because the top 10 executives at Apple Inc. are all white males.

Jorge Rivas at Colorlines

Maybe he meant diversity in overpriced products? Diversity as in, white dudes at the top jobs, people of colour on the manufacturing side? Oh, I bet they all went to different schools! Bam! That’s diversity!

Hm… looks a lot like another type of diversity

(Reblogged from newwavefeminism)
Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

nprfreshair:

“This is actually a patent that Apple owns and it’s referred to as the Siri patent because it doesn’t actually have anything to do with Siri, but it’s now seen as a lynch pin in protecting Siri. Apple, in 2004, applied for a patent that basically said: We want to create one interface to search across multiple databases. So at that point, as you’ll remember, Google had a search engine that would let you search the Web. And what Apple said is: In this patent — and this was before the iPhone, this is before Siri — we’re going to create one box that you can type in a term like ‘Terry Gross’ and we’re going to search the Internet and the contacts on your computer at the same time.

“They didn’t explain how this searching would happen, they didn’t explain how the software would work, they just explained what the outcome would be. They won that patent last year. It was finally granted to them after being denied nine different times. … And as a result, they’re in a position where they can credibly claim that they own any kind of search engine on Earth that searches more than one database at once.”

— Charles Duhigg on Apple’s Siri patent

(Reblogged from nprfreshair)
Share/Bookmark
Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings.
(Reblogged from wilwheaton)
Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark