The laws were absolutely written to benefit the public, not the creator.
That is the political spin used to get the laws passed, the intent was always to benefit the middlemen publishers. Proof the dominant voices for any extensions of copyright law, whether terms or what is covered, are the publishers, who claim to speak on behalf of the creators. Also note, that corporations do not create, they just employ people who create.
The system can have TWO (or more) passwords. The real one and zero or more Fake passwords.
You use the real password in every day use.
You give the fascist tyrant police state dictators one of the fake ones. When the fake one is entered, all that you can see are a few apps, uninteresting contacts (grocer, dog groomer, hospital, etc) and uninteresting data.
Another fake password could be configured by the user so that upon first use, it destroys the real data and the real password.
If pressured you could give the fascist tyrant police state dictators more than one fake password.
The moment they decide to target you, you are probably screwed regardless of what you choose to do. If they wanted to things legally and respect you're rights stuff like this would never even be thought of.
No one knows what will happen when theres 1000,s of self driving cars on the road, on some roads many people drive over the speed limit, will a self driving car drive over the speed limit in order to reduce the chance of an accident . human drivers know driving slowin certain situations can cause accidents , self driving cars could have red lights or be painted yellow like a taxi to let other drivers know they will not react as a human driver does . in the case of an emergency . what,ll happen when 30-50 per cent of cars in a city are self driving cars.
Sounds good; How about the baby stroller thing combined with crowded sidewalks on either side? What happens when the vehicle has to decide in a no win situation? You can program every contingency know to man and just when you think you've got it all figured out, man will do something completely irrational/unpredictable. Ever been driving down the road and seen someone not paying attention, and as a result of that observation/gut feeling, you avoided an accident? You could argue that if ALL cars were driver less, you wouldn't need that intuition... but what then of malfunctions? Hacks? Unpredictable weather? Geological events?. countless other things can/will come into play. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that it's going to be a long road...:)
"How much investment has there been with net neutrality, relative to the investment that would have occurred without net neutrality?"
This is a bullshit question. Investment in what, a walled garden? We all know how well that worked out for AOL.
Does this boil down to a decision based solely upon money? How much money does it take to convince people to shoot themselves in the foot? How much of a dividend increase today would it take to offset the inevitable correction in the future?
Mandating the divulging of passwords relies on some very dubious assumptions. One, it assumes that any information still unseen by prosecutors or investigators is of evidentiary value -- hence the perceived need to force suspects to unlock devices. As was seen in the San Bernardino case, a lengthy court battle and a million-dollar payout to Israeli hackers recovered nothing of interest from the shooter's iPhone.
This is a hypothetical I've wondered about for a while now... suppose one was "ordered" to unlock their phone (computer, etc.) and didn't want to for whatever reason. (It's not important why... let's say you're simply one of the unfortunate people with their cell phone held as "evidence" for no reason.)
Would it be realistic to propose a solution where the government must provide a specific, detailed warrant describing precisely what they're looking for and where they expect to find it (i.e., what they're supposed to do all the time) but accompanied by immunity from prosecution for anything else that might be on that phone that doesn't exactly match the warrant?
I'm definitely not a lawyer or Constitutional expert... but considering the fact that these devices really are massively personal supercomputers with practically our whole lives stored inside them, would that be a somewhat realistic compromise, a sort of way to bring the much-vaunted "All Writs Act" into the modern era? It certainly seems more reasonable than the "compromise" they seem to be offering, namely the "this cell phone is a locked door and we have the right to open doors with a warrant" argument.
Thought problems in ethics have little to nothing to do with real life. They certainly have no application to a vehicle run by either a human or a computer. If there is sufficient time for either to make a decision about what to hit, then there are multiple other decisions available to avoid an accident.
But of course accidents occur because people or CPUs put themselves in conditions that allow no time to make a decision of value. Most people would simply freeze, while a CPU would more likely be able to keep searching for an answer.
Any number of "what if" strawmen can be invented. Their utility other than discussion in ethics seminars has no meaning in the real world.
There won't be any punishment... well, maybe the first couple of times perhaps. But a simple "I forgot" will be the most common answer. They can't prove you remember, and you can't prove you forgot. They can toss you in jail maybe, but for what? Forgetting your password? They have to be able to prove contempt, or prove a lie. How are they going to do that?
Why are they even considering this? There's no need for a law mandating this since courts can already order a defendant to unlock his or her password and to decrypt an electronic device by way of a court order.
Besides, just because there is a law or a court order doesn't mean that the defendant is going to unlock or decrypt the device because it still boils down to pressuring someone to decrypt their device. If they don't want to do that, they aren't going to do that.