The only example I can find where there is any explanation as to what happened, the automated car isn't doing anything even remotely abnormal, just sitting stopped at a light behind a line of stopped cars and someone rear ended them.
Step 1) Start with child pornography, where anyone who complains is branded, so it's a shoo-in. Step 2) It's already being done for "other crimes", there is no logical reason it shouldn't also apply to crime X, Y, Z, and eventual most or all Step 3) Once it's in place, we are fine crank up the dial and rake in the money!
I love how everyone acts like encryption is a new thing made up and controlled by Apple and Google, like we haven't been dealing with it as long as people have been communicating at all.
Does anyone really think backdooring our encryption would make any difference toward their stated goal? Lets assume a law is passed and every U.S. company instantly gives (lets arbitrarily pick) the U.S. government and only the U.S. govt a backdoor into their encryption.. Even if this is magically perfect and the backdoor isn't discovered 2 days later by hackers, what scenario doesn't have some app made in China/Russia/wherever without this law take over as the preferred communication standard for anyone willing to make the effort?
Is this law supposed to cover the scenario where the terrorists are restricted to U.S. communication devices, are also are too lazy to install something secure on them, and lastly still choose to use these devices rather than a secure method to send critical messages to each other knowing there is a law to ensure they can be read by the U.S. govt?
"our privacy commitment does not extend to criminals."
This is misstated. He doesn't mean he is prejudicing people shown to be criminals (what reason would he have for that), but that their privacy commitment does not extend to people who *might* be criminals. In other words if you think it extends to you, you are wrong.
The best totalitarian states are the ones where the people are deceived into thinking they select their govt. They are much easier to control that way. Control the information, it's a much more efficient way to oppress than direct force.
Indeed, you would think they would at least be going after the actual infringers as well. Here the courts claim they have enough evidence to convict Cox of contributing to something when they won't attempt to claim it happened at all.