Re: Let's ban cops on the road because they're distracting
I have a ploicy of slamming on my brakes when a cop tailgates me. Once, the cop rear-ended me as a result. My answer to him when he asked why I slammed on the brakes: "a squirrel ran in front of my car".
It helps that in my state, any rear-end accident is automatically the fault of the car that did the rear-ending.
"Forgive me if the law does prohibit this, but wouldn't it be legal to use the phone hands-free? "
It depends on the state. However, using a phone hands-free doesn't eliminate the problem. Simply engaging in conversation with someone (whether over the phone or with them physically in the car) distracts drivers every bit as much as holding a phone to their heads.
They keep saying "court ordered" as if that somehow makes things better. As long as we have a FISA court, it does not. "Court ordered" or "with a warrant" mean absolutely nothing, and invoking those words does not bolster their case.
not only the integrity of our agents and prosecutors, but also the government’s capacity to self-correct in the (very small) minority of cases when someone falls short.
That's they can say this with a straight face, or even more frightening that they might even actually think this is even remotely true, is the clearest example of the deep and pervasive rot that has infested the DoJ.
Plus, the more surveillance a population is under, the more fearful the population is. Terrorists and those in power both want the average citizen to be as afraid as possible. This would be a win/win for them, but a lose for everyone else.
"Cell Phones have been listed as a potential carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)."
You should read what the IARC says this means. It's not nearly as bad as you imply. What they actually say is that there is no indication of any carcinogenic effect at all, with a single exception: extremely heavy cell phone usage may incur a tiny increase in the incidence of glioma, but the data is inconclusive. Therefore they classified it the way they did did said so that this aspect will be studied more closely.
What they did not say is that RF emissions are carcinogenic.
Personally, I noticed the discrepancy but thought it was of little importance. It just strongly indicates that VTech is lying about the number of kids involved, but that was already a well-established fact.
The lure of IOT has many companies collecting far more data than they could ever even conceivably need
Which is why everyone should avoid IoT things like the plague. The sad thing is that IoT could be done in a way that eliminates this problem simply by having the devices talk to a server placed in the home instead of in the cloud. But that would eliminate the entire entire reason companies are so excited about IoT: the expanded spying opportunities.
I configure my whole-net firewall so it blocks outgoing connections just as fervently as incoming ones. No outbound traffic is allowed without my explicitly allowing it. We long ago passed the point where you can consider either side of your firewall as trustworthy.