That means that there will be cops, the arresting officer and the one with the tape measure to make sure that some "miscreant" is at the correct distance, or further from the scene.
Any time the police see someone recording them, they have to get out a 25' string and a piece of chalk and draw a circle indicating the no film zone. However, put the camera away and you're welcome to step inside. Makes perfect sense.
Ever wonder why we changed our laws back in the 70's? It was because the US long before came to the realization that it was an outlier in the international community in matters of copyright law, and as a consequence of which US authors were quite often getting shafted in foreign markets.
Are you claiming that lobbying from the US copyright industries had nothing to do with it?
When cameras and tech are so universally available that people will be able to take high resolution photographs from a mile away?
Lenses are not like electronics. A lens that has enough zoom to take a detailed photo from a mile away is not getting significantly cheaper. And a higher resolution sensor only gets you so far, because packing so many pixels on a tiny sensor actually runs into problems with the size of photons, which cannot be solved, so you need a much bigger sensor, which is a lot more expensive to manufacture... there's a reason expensive cameras and lenses are expensive.
Crowdsource it all you like. That will not likely get through the encryption.
That depends on how smart the ABQ police are. If they didn't pick a very strong password, several thousand PCs could definitely brute force guess it in a reasonable amount of time. If they picked something really long and/or really random, it would not be feasible, but my sense is most people don't do that.
you don't encrypt your telphone communications, and these are broadcast across publicly accessable wire lines, listening in on your conversations is completely okay then? right?
Phone lines are not publicly accessible. A better analogy would be if I'm talking to my neighbor with an unencrypted walkie-talkie, and you listen in. Not a problem, because I'm broadcasting in the clear. You have done nothing wrong by receiving my transmission. If you hear something that's clearly meant to be a private conversation, it would be rude to listen in, but IMO not immoral. And it certainly should not be illegal.
So if the FBI is wasting half of its counter-terrorism budget on homemade plots, we're half as safe as if they spent all their budget on real terrorists (assuming, for the moment, that there are enough real terrorists to go around).
That also assumes that the FBI spending money on counter-terrorism makes us safer from terrorism. This is an assumption I have not seen any proof of.
Technically speaking since the mobile carrier requested to the mobile phone maker that tethering be disabled by default on all phones for their network, then yes they are blocking a lawful, non-harmful service.
As long as it can be done with a rooted device, then they're not blocking anything on the network. So it could be a problem - perhaps consumer rights, perhaps anti-competitive - but not a net neutrality problem.