During the election amid the Clinton e-mail scandal, the WikiLeaks information was used to browbeat anyone that wasn't pro Trump. I remember quotes like "don't hide behind the fact the information was leaked, respond to what it says". Basically, people were told that how the information got out didn't matter, it was the information itself that was important (the message, not the messenger).
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the same people are saying "you shouldn't hold him responsible for lying, no one was supposed to find out it was a lie, so it's ok".
In my simple mind, it shouldn't work that way.....
I agree that "fake news" isn't going to change anyone's opinion (or at most a few weak minded individuals). That doesn't mean that it had NO impact on the election. While it doesn't change opinion it concretes existing opinion (confirmation bias) and increases the likelihood that REAL facts that could have changed a persons vote will be disregarded.
Say I'm the first person to tweet about (or whatever is decided to be the minimum requirement for "reporting") a terrorist event... Can I sue the TV station or news paper that runs a later "report" if it's within 24 hours?
Sounds to me like the media stands to lose more than they gain in a citizen reporter time in history.
Why would you "invite" the CEO of a fortune 50 company to attend a meeting to speak about encryption? If you really want to know, wouldn't you invite security experts or maybe send a message to Apple asking them to provide an expert?
Obviously, the goal was to make a show of calling Cook to the principals office for a stern talking to. Kudos to him for declining.
By "programming" does he mean the shows or the schedule? I think the Cable industry is intentionally confusing the two.
Whey they say "we have to provide unencrypted programming for free to the set top boxes" they mean, "we have to provide an unencrypted schedule to the set top box". But then they carefully don't correct people when they quote them as saying "cable companies have to provide unencrypted SHOWS to the set top boxes which will lead to pirating".
I suspect that if you feed the software a series of pictures of middle eastern men all wearing suicide vests as terrorists, it would probably be able to identify middle eastern men wearing suicide vests as potential terrorists (or potentially US doctors).... Seems legit.
"Google throws Android manufacturers under the bus"....
In breaking news, Google has thrown all Android manufactures under the bus by ONLY defending its "Google Play Music" product in a slam dunk patent lawsuit filed by the creator of computer audio Creative Labs against all Android manufactures.
Google could have chosen to defend all of its manufactures by naming each of the manufacturers products, but instead chose to only defend its own product.
This will have a huge impact on the Android market as now all manufacturers will have to re-think their selection of Android as opposed to other offerings like Windows Phone.
Rumor has it that this huge misstep by Google has led Apple to consider licensing it's product line to offer manufacturers a totally stable, well rounded, inexpensive and patent impervious operating system option.
I'm pretty sure that drug trafficking is illegal and as such it's the Sheriff's job to arrest all drug dealers. Assuming there's at least one drug dealer in his county, he is isn't doing what he has been legally ordered to do. So he needs to arrest himself, right?
"Even getting to 11 may be tricky without some serious compromises. If you assume (which is already unlikely) that the non-law enforcement/intelligence guys would all agree on something, you're still left with the 6 law enforcement and intelligence commissioners. One of them would have to be convinced to go along with the report."
I think this is incredibly optimistic. What we have is a committee comprised of 16 individuals - we can be pretty darned sure the 6 LEO folks are going to be anti-encryption, but what worries me is that the other 10 are hand picked to also be anti-encryption.
Somehow, I really don't see that it's going to be hard to get 11 votes, but almost impossible to get 11 pro encryption votes.