Actually, I think he read the article just fine. Is it really that far of a stretch to believe that some game companies constant complaining about stupid things like piracy is a big part of what lead to this complete misunderstanding about what modding a game means?
Heck, I even see plenty of game devs whine when people mod or cheat in games they own (talking single player, not affecting other people). I think the connection between this report and that ridiculous whining to be pretty obvious.
Which is why the anti-SLAPP law is soooo important here. If they can win that, then at least they can get the attorney's fees back. Will still have wasted a lot of time fighting it, but it's a lot better than just a simple court win.
Perhaps you could give a good reason why it should be located anywhere else, or on it's own? You know, to respond to the several good reasons Mike gave for why it's good to have it there.
Of course these things 'could' be accomplished without this connection. Anything can be accomplished without it! That doesn't add anything to this discussion. What good does it do to not have it there?
That would require too detailed a case to work. Basically, it would make it almost impossible for the person to ever unlock their phone again because they'd have to get that exact facial expression exactly right the second time, which is next to impossible for any person to do.
Facial recognition attempts to analyze several generic data points to tell if it's likely the same face looking back at it. This actually describes part of the problem with biometrics. You never get 100% match accuracy, so you're always guessing and accepting some degree of inaccuracy.
Exactly. The security world needs to give up on biometrics. As flawed as passwords are, biometrics are NOT better.
The very fact that you cannot change your biometrics breaks one of the basic requirements of security. To say nothing of the fact that anyone can grab them from you without needing your help in any way.
Actually the law does see it as an expansion. The point wasn't about how the items were being stored at all. if you read a little more than just that sentence you'd see that it was about HOW MUCH is being stored.
When you can carry your entire home and 3 cars in a handbag, then maybe you'll have a point. For now, the exception only made sense because of the limited amount of stuff that was being searched.
Yes, but regulating the fact that you want to use a drone for business use vs personal use has NOTHING to do with regulating its "safe and efficient" use. That distinction seems to be completely outside the powers they've been given to regulate it.
Human language is by definition ambiguous. It is unfortunate, but you can't get away from it. Under most circumstances the ambiguity is not enough to cause that much confusion, but unfortunately sometimes the reader will have to put forth some effort to interpret based on the context.
Even if what you say is true (and you provide absolutely zero evidence that it is), the assertion you're trying to make is absolutely ridiculous.
Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few of its members is one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. Every group has members that don't follow that groups thinking and do dumb things. I could easily counter with examples of members of that group doing really great things.
Heck, I'll even step out there and admit that I'm a member of the LDS Church, and I've seen some members do some pretty terrible things that I abhor. I also recognize the difference between what someone chooses to do on their own and what the Church actually teaches.
When are you going to admit we have a real problem?
How about when you admit that you don't have the evidence to show that the very real climate change is being even significantly contributed to by us?
Just to be clear, I would love to have a good honest conversation with anyone about it. I would be happy if we could find proof of exactly what we're doing and what we can change that would help the planet. It's just that all I ever see are insults and hatred thrown about. That will never get us anywhere.
While I agree with the intent of your statement, your conclusion cannot be correct.
If the 4th protected all data about me no matter what, then many obviously reasonable things would suddenly become illegal for obviously ridiculous reasons. For instance, it would be illegal to track when I visit your store simply because it was information about me. It is reasonably accepted fact that anything you do in public is known by the public.
The problem with this case is that the information is revealing things about what I do in a place that is obviously private and personal.
Whether or not I can reasonably expect what I'm doing to be private is a reasonable and necessary interpretation of the 4th's protections. Now whether their definition of reasonable in any given instance matches ours is an issue that still needs some serious resolving.
Thank you so much for pointing this out! The thing I probably couldn't stand more than anything else is all the union workers acting like Uber drivers were horrible people for breaking an agreement they NEVER ENTERED INTO!
It also sickens me to see the unions using all this misapplied hatred to pretend that everyone who isn't part of one of their unions is somehow powerless and should unionize immediately. Unions can serve an important and valid purpose, but they are not the only way to empower yourself as an employee. The unions of today honestly stopped serving their employees the minute they started forcing them all to join just to work, IMHO.
The fact that usernames are not confidential is irrelevant. Neither are biometrics.
A username is meant to identify a user. That's exactly what biometrics are meant to do. Believing that a biometric is confidential is just inviting yourself to get hacked.
The problem I have with the push for biometrics today is that too much of the information people are basing their opinions on is assumption, not proven fact. The biggest two being that biometrics are unique to a single person (never proven true), and that they cannot be easily copied (proven false).