I think what Matt is getting at is the Enterprise use case. The Enterprise owns the computer, but the issue of privacy is not as clear-cut, including in situations where technically you have pre-authorization.
-
-
I don't follow, as you said, the enterprise owns the computer and therefore is the owner. They have authorization, which is another word for permission, no issue from me, you're all good.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
So in your model as long as any of the parties to a DNS "transaction" are actually participants in the transaction, they have default consent to monitor at least their own bit of it. Yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You're scaring me Matt!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Dude, you're the one that put "owner" in quotes... You must have had some reason for doing that, but it makes your meaning ambiguous unless you explain what you meant.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Are you talking to me? I have not put owner in quotes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Tavis, I'd love to have coffee or a chat about this topic sometime. It's starting to seem like something that can only result in unfair assumptions if we keep it on Twitter. I assure you, I'm not interested in justifying anyones' bad behavior, and I'm leaving it at that.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Sure, sounds good. The only thing I can think of is you're worried enterprises will lose control of their systems, absolutely not. They're the owners, and that is not complicated.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
You either are the owner, or the legal parent/guardian of the owner. Relax, you have permission to change any defaults.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Think about it. You're saying bright kids can *undo* a change to the default, but they're not bright enough to change the default? That doesn't make sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 5 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.