Why limit RTBF to the internet? If such a right actually exists, and has to be applied globally, then let's do it.
So all those criminals have a right to have those past crimes forgotten right? Robbed a house a couple of years ago, so what, it's old news and no one cares now, strike it from the arrest record. That murder from 15 years ago went cold, let's forget about it. I haven't heard Snowden's name tossed around as much lately as it was a couple of years ago, I guess we've moved on. He has the right to be forgotten too, and come back home and move on with his life. All those registered sex offenders who did their time in prison, let's forget about it and remove them from that list (which, can be found online).
Point is, why is it OK to be forgotten on the internet, but not in any other aspect of your life? Especially when that aspect is records kept by the government?
Your wireless mouse is surely a remote detonator, prepare to surrender it.
A wireless mouse without a readily identifiable receiver attached to the laptop will require a full cavity search.
Leftover crumbs from your morning doughnut that managed to find their way into your keyboard are probably leftover explosive residue. Any attempts to use compressed air or shake out the crumbs is a sign you are trying to hide your misdeeds and a tacit admission of guilt. You will be detained and violated, probably including forced X-Rays, MRI's and enema's.
Laptops with wireless capability are especially suspect, since we are all master hackers and could easily take over the plane and cause the engine to blow itself up. Or take over the plane and fly into something. This may only apply to first class passengers, since you probably need a bit of elbow room to do your hacking.
The first step is to admit you have a problem. It would seem our congressmen haven't made it to this point, while the FCC has. These congressmen (and women) seem more intent on acting like alcoholics begging their newly sober friends to go out and have a drink with them, rather than representing the interests of the people that elected them.
Of course our government wants us to believe that strong encryption would be devastating to life. They can't protect us from terrorists, other nations or ourselves without it.
But, they don't want it to apply to them either. They wouldn't stop using encryption or give other countries a back door so that they can spy on America. Imagine the laughter if a Russian Diplomat stopped by and said, do you mind building us a back door to your military encryption, we promise not to use it very much and only with a warrant, it'll be completely safe. Even though it's essentially the same line of bullshit they try to cram down our throats, they wouldn't give in to the demand either, so why should we?
Maybe, if they wanted to have a real conversation, they could explain why it's vital for them to have encryption for the things THEY don't want others to know, but I am supposed to give up my right to keep things confidential from the spying eyes of other countries, or even my own. But they cant do that, because it will never fit in with their narrative of having to have control over everyone and everything while they enjoy the same privileges we are supposed to give up.
So, when they are ready and willing to put their money where their mouths are, and give up encryption too, I'll be ready and willing to side with them and support the anti-encryption cause for the good of kidnapped children everywhere.
I feel like this is a win for consumers in one way, with the potential for a huge loss in another way. While cord cutting is great, and I'd be happy to cut the cord myself if it wasn't for being unable to watch the things I want to see without it, I can see where my costs will be shifted under this kind of deal, not reduced.
With restrictive data caps on cellular services and cable companies wanting to put caps on their offerings as well, and more offerings like this hopefully becoming available, data usage will have to increase. The potential consumer raping that could follow isn't going to be any better than what we get now with traditional cable, and really has the potential to be far worse for those who want to rely on streaming services.
It's a good step forward, but one I think we need to take cautiously.
I get that it looks like a bomb. Great. And rules are rules, whether we agree with them or not.
My issue here is that they should not have confiscated it. They could have easily pulled the passenger aside, checked it to be sure it wasn't actually dangerous and then given the passenger two options:
1. Return the clearly, checked, non-bomb to the passengers' checked baggage where it can be safely stowed and inaccessible during the flight.
2. Allow the passenger to have the item boxed and shipped, at his own expense, to his final destination or home.
Either way, the passenger gets to keep his item. I think it's a fair compromise, one that might even help the TSA earn a bit of an image of being more than just government thugs.
I am not glossing over your point. I made the same point in my original comment, that manufacturers will make a product to meed the requirements set forth by the state of California. Because of that, the rest of us who DO NOT live in California will essentially be subjected to their laws, and there is a pattern of this happening throughout the U.S. because of laws passed in California (and apparently others as well, as you mentioned).
I agree that manufacturer's are also to blame, and really so is the public for not being more vocal about it. For the manufacturers though, they have to respond to changes in the law in order to sell their product. And they have to make a profit too, or at least break even, so they will naturally do things as cheaply as possible (i.e. one method of producing the product instead of 50). They get away with it in part because people outside of California aren't saying "hey, I don't want to buy your Widget with California's requirements" loud enough.