The feds might well lean on the person holding the switch, with either legal threats or blackmail. What we need is an anonymous Dead Man's Switch for a company:
Determine which people in the office would have to know about the arrival of a secret order, and have them draw straws with a crypto protocol to determine which of them will set up and maintain the Dead Man's Switch. Nobody knows who's sending the signals, but when the order arrives the signals stop, the switch trips, the key has ceased to exist and everyone has plausible deniability.
"Male health professionals who said they regularly skipped breakfast were 27% more likely to die during 16 years of follow-up... And those who said they ate late at night were 55% more likely to die...
...Both relationships, however, fell shy of statistical significance after further adjustment..."
In other words, nothing. This is medical journalism?
It is possible that this woman has some kind of psychiatric imbalance, e.g. bipolar disorder. I knew a man who had that one; he was a kind, gentle, generous soul who loved animals-- and threatened to kill the neighbor's dog when he went off his meds.
If it's something like that, then although this woman's act was horrifying, punishment doesn't really make any sense, and if we are civilized people we won't relish the idea of her suffering for it.
I did not misunderstand. He made a used-even-if-not-used suggestion which is nonsense on its face, and you blurred his language into the almost meaningless term "involved", in order to hide the absurdity.
If you want a simpler illustration (albeit less colorful), try this: "Automatically double the sentence for any crime committed by a person in posession [sic] of shoelaces, whether or not the shoelaces were used, to disincentivise people from using shoelaces for evil."
Now is it clear that the proposed law doesn't make much sense? That murder by shooting with a gun isn't intrinsically twice as bad as murder by some other means such as garrotting with a shoelace or evisceration with a chainsaw? That something legal and harmless should not act as a magic crime-doubler?
"...Why not just... automatically double the sentence for any crime committed by a person in posession of a gun..., whether or not the gun was used, to disincentivise people from using guns for evil..."
Umm... increase sentences whether or not a gun was used, to discourage the use of guns? Well all right, sure, why not, but we get one to impose one on you: in Canada, you must double the sentence for any crime committed by a person who owns a chainsaw, whether or not the chainsaw was used, to dissuade people from using chainsaws for evil.
Seriously, which would you rather be murdered with?
"The administration, various members of Congress and heads of security agencies all agree: there must be a balance between security and privacy."
Somehow I'm not getting inured to this particular bit of newspeak; it still pisses me off.
Security and privacy are not naturally opposed. Privacy is part of security. People who talk about the "balance" are asking us to surrender our civil rights in exchange for protection against monsters under the bed.
And that's when my mental immune system rejected this whole "survey". When you ask many people a question, you can say "on average..." or "less than 10 percent", but the only reason to combine those phrases is to conceal a mutilation of the data.
“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone, it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government."
In the America I grew up in, this would have been a bad joke, and a Police Commissioner who said this in earnest into a live microphone would've been out of a job within days. What the hell is going on?