"Nonetheless, the FBI continued to pay for the licenses while it considered the legal and constitutional implication of the malware, ultimately shelling out $5 million for exploits it apparently never used".
Where is the proof that they never used it, or that they only tested it on the burner phones (which counts as using it)?
Better question, who did they give the burner phones to and were they informed they were subject to an extrajudicial prostate examination via their new shiny toy?
What are the odds that someone right now is saying "Scotty, I told you this could happen. I warned you not to pick that account and go with the other one. Did you listen to me? No, of course you didn't. Don't whine at me and demand I fix it. There is nothing to fix, this is working as intended. Don't call me again you annoying dipshit"?
... and the part of me that thinks this might be lies or a distortion of the truth is based on the simple fact that there is no way something like this would stay a secret forever.
The reputational damage, the endless wave of civil suits as everyone sues the tits off Google / Alphabet / whatever-shell-corporation-it-is-this-week, the fact anyone involved would be happily thrown to the wolves if it got Google /Alphabet off the hook legally speaking ... the consequences for when the game was up, not if, are so severe that it's difficult to see how it could get green lit.
Yes, I know corporate America and late stage capitalism seem to just dive headlong into short term profit at the exclusion of anything else (including long term sustainability) but the consequences here seem so bad that I can't see how this went beyond a dubious experiment that was shut down afterwards as the downsides vastly outweighed the positives.
I have no difficulty seeing Google / Alphabet (any US company frankly) being greedy enough to pull a stunt like this. Being smart enough to figure out a scam like this, yet somehow stupid enough to think it will never be uncovered? That's a whole different ballgame.
... 'cos that advert got things backwards. It's showing us what life would be like without encryption ... everyone's personal life exposed for anyone to exploit and prey upon.
Otherwise I'm confused about the message they are trying to send. Pedos only operate in greenhouses, telephone booths and similar spaces? Children locked inside a small unventilated and sealed environment won't suffocate? The UK government thinks taxpayers are idiots to be exploited at will?
No it does not. Multicore CPUs have been around for years at this point in time. A system that that has all the evidence to indicate to it that it has encountered a multicore CPU (reports the same IP address, MAC address, machine name, group name, Windows license key, same Steam / GOG/ UbiSoft / EA account, etc.), and incorrectly classifies it is 2 separate systems does not make technical sense.
Instead, it shows me the system is badly flawed and was not written with a scrap of future proofing in mind. New CPUs are to be expected, if you're hardcoding your software for specific CPUs I think the 1990s is calling on line #1 and would like you to stop being a Luddite.
Granted we are talking about DRM here and the end user experience is something no fucks were given towards at any stage in the development of the software.
"we take abuse of that process very seriously."
But not seriously enough to start legal proceedings against someone, costing them money and time and not just mildly inconveniencing them in response to them actually stealing people's income via DCMA fraud or extortion / blackmail using DCMA (as YouTube has implemented it) as a weapon.
I guess YouTube has a very different understanding of the words "abuse", "very" and "seriously" to the rest of the planet.
... and now you're just wilfully misinterpreting the situation or trying to separate the demand a government made from the directly corresponding reactions of a company to the demand in order to create a hollow "moderation" leg to stand on and claim that the company is not censoring.
The best case scenario if you want to go down that road is the the company is facilitating censorship, or engaging with censorship. Again, I ask please provide an example to support your position. I can't see one myself but am curious if such a situation could exist.
"No matter how good Google Translate is ..."
It's not, or at least it wasn't. I tried to use it to translate official documents, pension agreements, and other official documents when I worked overseas. These were documents that did not contain slang or colloquialisms and it struggled badly with them. Granted Bing and other translation services faired no better.
The common problem was they all translated a sentence one word at a time rather than taking the whole sentence in context. The end result is a literal translation of the text, not a translation of the meaning of the text. I shudder to think how such systems would mangle slang, colloquialisms or contractions (I'd, shouldn't, ain't, etc.).
When they are moderating on behalf of a state or state agency, and it's not due to regulatory/legal requirements, please explain how that is not censorship?
I'm genuinely curious if such a situation can exist but still can be objectively considered as moderation.
Yes they do. It's on their list of Top Priorities. Somewhere. Along with Making All The Money, Pay No Taxes, and Protect Our Executives From Any Consequences and many more Top Priorities.
Just remember the list includes zero, negative numbers and imaginary numbers.
... or willfully ignoring that some people are complete assholess, that there are ample examples of people blackmailing sites, channel owners, content creators, small musicians, etc. via abuse of DCMA / copyright / ContentID systems.
Such people are in all probability jizzing in their pants at the though of the fuckery they can get up to if section 230 is weakened or fundamentally rescinded.
Seriously? That's how civil suits work in the US? I honestly have no idea if it works the same in my neck of the woods for civil cases but I'd have expected there to be some judicial cog in the process to say "knock it off, you're being an asshat".