"Any malware found in a vehicle should be treated as evidence of attempted murder by default"
And this is why Tim's comment "Self-driving cars are an inevitability" is wrong. Just like how people's fears of Google Glass killed the product, people's fears of self driving cars will kill that as well. Seriously, how many people will be willing to get a self driving car if they're worried about other people assaulting them out of fear?
You are vary wrong about this. It's not just about rights, it's about giving preferential treatment based on arbitrary morality. Why should the Redskins have a harder time dealing with knock-offs when other, equally or more vulgar trademarks get government protection?
So the choice is remove all trademarks or quit limiting them based on arbitrary morality.
And thus the reason why cable TV is hemorrhaging subscribers. We're forced to pay for cable boxes if we want the higher channels, but as you say we're not starved for alternatives. As much as you might want to keep to the delusion, cable is dying. If anything, opening up the set top box market would help cable as more people might be willing to have one.
Eh. I could see it. I've seen TV shows reach the upper 5 digits in seeders from just one source. Adding two more digits across all the sources is possible. The show is popular, cable TV is annoying, and AMC's website is a steaming pile of ass. I could see 1.27 million people being pissed off enough to pirate it.
That's not a limitation of the hardware, it's a limitation of software. Remember, they sent men to the moon with similar power to a calculator watch, but they did it without Start buttons or solitaire. Think about all the fancy your OS has and think about how much faster it would run without all that stuff that just looks pretty or you outright just don't use.
Fun fact: In Firefox there is a checkbox "Play DRM Content" that's disabled by default.
I don't doubt that there will be addons like NoScript and AdBlock that let you white list websites for DRMed content, and I don't doubt that there will be addons to completely bypass the DRM as well.
I hope the W3C understand what they're getting into. The companies that are requesting DRM in HTML5 will be coming back to the W3C at least once a week to update the DRM because the previous version has been cracked.
TOR and VPNs may use encryption, but in the cases referenced here, don't use it to hide the traffic itself, only it's origin. Once the traffic gets past the last TOR node or the VPN end point, it's broadcast in the clear. They're not designed to hide what you're surfing, only where you're surfing from.
That's something I hadn't thought of. Ripping a new back door into encryption would do irreparable damage, opening new security flaws. Hackers wouldn't even need to target the official backdoor, they can just go after the cracks around it.
The Google commercial says "there are about 2 billion, 500 million heartbeats in a lifetime." Part of the Book's subtitle is "the next 2 billion heartbeats of your life". Since the author is insisting Google directly copied his subtitle, then we can assume he agrees with the numbers.
So if there are 2,500,000,000 heartbeats in a lifetime and the book is for your future 2,000,000,000 heartbeats, does that mean it's a children's book? That cover doesn't look like it would draw too many five year olds.
Apple wouldn't be building a backdoor into the encryption. It would be building a backdoor into the other security features in iOS. The vulnerability you speak of is only a way to install the backdoor. The hacking tool would be the software the FBI already has to brute force the password.
They're not trying to get a backdoor into the phone, they're trying to get a backdoor into the law. The phone is only valuable because it was owned by bad people and is encrypted. They can hold the phone up and threaten people with it: "What if this phone has more bad people's information?"
It's a great way to get people to accept a tiny change in what we accept as reality. It's not breaking the encryption, it's not directly affecting your phone, so it shouldn't be a problem.
But what about the next phone? This security flaw might be fixed, but that's not going to stop the court from ordering Apple to find another security flaw, and another, and another. Each one pushing just a little harder, stretching what we'll accept just a little more until there are no more security flaws.
When that happens it's not a large step at all to order Apple to start including these flaws. It's still not breaking encryption, still not directly affecting your phone. The software must be signed using Apple's secure key, so your phone's still safe.
And thus what we're willing to accept is stretched even further.
What about the next step after that. All these security flaws still don't address the primary issue, the encryption. Keep a good password on your encryption and you won't ever have a problem with these minor changes. So how long until the FBI or whomever come across a phone that is properly encrypted but could have been used to prevent another 9/11?
Our acceptance has already been stretched to accept security flaws in our phones, why not weaken encryption so the government can brute force the phone in a few days instead of centuries? Still not directly affecting your phone. Any normal person won't have access to the information required to use the weakness. Even if they did, they don't have access to the hardware the government has and wouldn't be able to crack the encryption in any reasonable amount of time.
But days delay can kill.
I could keep hammering this home, but to make a long story short: while the boiling frog story might be inaccurate, the meaning behind it is vary real.
And it doesn't take an intentional plan to kill of privacy. If what we're willing to accept can change, so can what the government is willing to accept.
I don't know how iPhones work, but if they're anything like my Android phone, no, it's not possible to do that. The USB port is cut off from storage until the phone is unlocked. The host OS in memory might be accessible through the port, but the internal storage itself isn't.
"If smartphones are beyond the reach of law enforcement, crimes will go unsolved, criminals will not be held accountable, victims will not receive justice and our ability to protect our children and community will be significantly compromised,"
There's your problem. Victims don't receive justice, the accused receives justice. To insist otherwise is not justice, it's vengeance. Once we get into vengeance territory, protecting the innocent goes out the window. It becomes about punishing the guilty no matter who else gets hurt along the way. "Casualties of war" as they will call it.
As Whatever so vary unintentionally points out, those who are in favor of mass violations of human rights are using words and definitions to distract everyone from the actions that are taking place.
The question should not be "Is what we're doing best described as mass surveillance or bulk collection?" The real question is "Should the mass collection of everyone's data be legal?" And the answer to that is quite clearly "Oh fuck no."