This is my concern too. I have a disability that requires use of a wheelchair, and if I lived in an area which had a bus service that was subsequently killed off in the name of efficiency (and for which no Uber or Lyft service was offered as a replacement, again for "efficiency"), I'd be pretty pissed. This is why some basic level of public transportation service is needed (and is related to why private delivery services can't and shouldn't fully replace the USPS): if you consider transportation a right (and it is certainly a necessity for poorer people who still need to get to work somehow, even if owning or renting a car is unaffordable), there will be certain routes that need to be serviced even though their market inefficiency will mean private companies would generally shy away.
This is basically what I was getting at in my comment above, and while I'm glad that the author of the article replied to my comment concurring with my opinion, I would have liked to see a little more detailed discussion.
This isn't entirely relevant to the actual discussion at hand, but I have to wonder: is it that realistic to expect significant decreases in drunk driving rates across the board just through better availability of alternatives (like ridesharing)? There are two issues that I can think of in this regard. 1. Wouldn't it be plausible that the people who drive drunk are the people who would rather drive under any circumstance anyway (so they wouldn't even consider ridesharing, while they are drunk)? 2. Aren't the people who drive drunk the people who brought their car to wherever they consumed alcohol and are under the belief that they need to drive back to bring their car back home too? Why would they take ridesharing then?
How is this indefensible for ordinary citizens but somehow now defensible for police officers, who, in being sworn to uphold the law and protect citizens (should be in that order), should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens?
As shocking as it is for me to see a hawk like Lindsey Graham turn around on this issue, I'm even more shocked that a politician like him is willing to admit that (1) they changed positions and (2) they did so after carefully reconsidering the evidence and talking to experts. Even if it went the other way (going from supporting Apple to supporting the FBI/DOJ), I'd be heartened by the honesty.
Here's my question: given that the phone was modified on FBI orders soon after the crime, even if Apple were somehow able to find a way to get evidence from the phone without compromising the security of all of its other phones, would the extracted evidence even be admissible in court?
released a statement along the same lines, supposedly asking people in Silicon Valley to help the government in fighting terrorism and asking them to take seriously the concerns of those in power with regard to encryption. With all that we've seen the government do to hamper civil liberties (in this regard at least), how again are we supposed to take such calls seriously?
I saw his interview two nights ago on The Daily Show, and I was a bit disappointed to see Trevor Noah just rolling with it. More than that, though, I smelled something fishy when Ted Koppel was quoting DHS and other such people as his sources for his apocalyptic predictions, given their history of overhyping these threats; in that sense, I'm glad to see that it wasn't just me. It's sad to see a man with such a storied and respected history in journalism stoop to such levels just to stay relevant today.
I saw a movie on DVD a few days ago. It had the warning "piracy is not a victimless crime" (I might have gotten the exact wording slightly off). I actually agreed with that warning, though for an entirely different reason: Hollywood assumes that it isn't victimless and is therefore a crime, whereas from what I've seen, it is victimless and therefore shouldn't be a crime.
I was in the Boston area when the Marathon attacks happened over 2 years ago, and the police response then was to go door-to-door, without a warrant, demanding any and all possible information on the whereabouts of the suspects from ordinary people. (The city and surrounding areas were basically shut down on that Friday too.) If something like that were to happen again (specifically including the detail about going around without a warrant), can the police arrest someone in their own home for "not cooperating with an investigation"? I'm getting the sense that unfortunately the Boston police forces got a bit drunk with power after the Marathon attacks (though I do commend their bravery through the ensuing firefight against the suspects). Plus, on a more topical note, after last night's spate of shootings, I think Boston police should probably focus on doing their own jobs as best as they can instead of trying to pull citizens into the line of fire.
So Barbie is now a "smart" doll? And this coming from the doll that once notably said "match class is tough"? This seems incredibly two-faced of Mattel. Hey, there's an idea: a monster Barbie with two faces!
I can sort of see why the author of that piece is upset though. Isn't the point of encryption to make sure that email originating from political dissidents and activists cannot be distinguished from email going between ordinary people? I don't doubt that it has already proved its worth with people like Snowden, but I can't help but feel it would be far more useful if everyone was using it (and not just Snowden and others like him); in that context, the criticism seems even more understandable.