3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
First, I have to establish a VPN between my remote device (laptop/phone/computer) with my router, using both a certificate and a (16-character) password. Once I have established this VPN, upon access the DVR that the cameras are connected to, requires another authentication step, a username-password pair, whcih can only be accepted coming via the VPN tunnel.
Now while anything connected to the internet has a level of security vulnerability, this is pretty secure.
Perhaps the issues you have are to do with products that require connection to services that are outside your control?
I think ACs point is that SOMETHING (whether it be the OS or the firmware of the host computer itself) on the host system has to initiate the running of whatever is on the USB stick, whether that be loading the USB sticks firmware or executing code on a filesystem on the stick (Autoplay), SOMETHING on the host computer has to initiate that. The USB stick's firmware isn't magical and can't just make the host computer start loading the USB stick firmware. The host computer has to in some way allow that to happen.
So, the problem ISN'T the USB stick, it's the host system that allows a USB stick to run arbitrary code, whether in USB firmware or on a USB filesystem, without any sort of security checks.
We are told the autonomous car is safer because it has the ability of a machine to constantly scan and not be distracted - accept when the machine cannot see that which the car hits. Does not matter how well it scans if it cannot see the danger. This the first fundamental rule of autonomous vehicles?
This is true.
However, what relevance it has to a discussion about a collision by a non-autonomous vehicle I have no idea.
Tesla is not an autonomous vehicle. Tesla's Autopilot system is not an autonomous system. It is a suped-up cruise control.
Is there anything in the treaties ISDS provisions that establishes the role of precedents?
Even if Philip Morris has lost this arbitration, could another tobacco company launch the same case against Uruguay under the same treaty and have that tribunal ignore this precedent and give a different ruling?
Even if the treaty does specify precedents as binding, what effect does this have on ISDS provisions of OTHER treaties? For example, would this precedent be binding on TPP ISDS tribunals? If Uruguay signs up to TPP, could Philip Morris launch the same action again against Uruaguay under TPP and have that tribunal ignore the precedent set under this treaty and rule differently?
He knows content based restrictions on speech won't pass Constitutional muster.
Are you sure of that?
There are laws that, based on the plain reading of the constitution, are unconstitutional, but have been implemented and survived constitutional challenges. Usually by the Supreme Court declaring some special state interest, or introducing new legal principles that don't previously exist to make an exception of something.
You are free to practice any element of a religion as long as that element doesn't break a law.
You are freee to believe in a death cult, say a cult that as part of it requires sacrificing 1 human every week.
You can follow that religion, as long as you don't perform the illegal act of murdering someone. You can WANT it to happen, and complain about the fact that if you do do it you'll be arrested for murder. But as long as you don't actually do that (or any other) illegal act, you are free to believe in, worship and perform the rituals of that religion.
Playing Devil's advocate, what they are trying to say is that these services have become a social necessity and first amendment protections should apply. I kind of agree.
Faceboook is not a social necessity.
Facebook is basically a big social club, a REALLY big social club, but just a club nonetheless. It'd be like saying that the YMCA is a social necessity, therefore they have to allow you to post anything (that isn't illegal) on their bulletin boards.
The Internet is a social necessity. Many of the proocols that are used on it, SMTP, HTTP/S, TCP/IP, SIP, are necessities. For example, email (SMTP) is a necessity. Interfering with email, deleting email messages in transit passing through your mail relay would be actionable under this theory (it's a necessity so first amendment protections apply). However, providing a particular email SERVICE, e.g. gmail.com, outlook.com, other free email providers, is not a necessity.
If Facebook disappeared, then we'd just go back to Bulletin Boards or maillists. I mean, Facebook is basically just a glorified BB service/portal that's been hacked by spammers to spam you with unwanted advertising.
Utility poles are critical public infrastructure and as such perhaps should be owned by the state rather than the utility companies, as it is likely, as in many places, that the poles themselves are erected on public land or other land that is not actually owned by the utility pole carriers.
Other alternatives: start charging rent to the utility pole companies, with a rent-waiver or reduction if they allow the access as per the "one touch make ready" requirements.
Zero rating also is seeing support from companies that historically supported net neutrality (Google, Netflix) because these companies are benefiting from the additional traffic and ad eyeballs these programs send their direction.
The other benefit these companies receive is blocking competition. Buy paying a, probably small, or at least by these companies standards relatively small, amount of money to the ISP, they can block their start-up and other small competitors from competing with them because the small competitors can't afford to be zero-rated. And best of all, it's not GOOGLE's or NETFLIX's fault that start-ups can't compete, can't afford to be zero-rated, oh no, they can point the finger at the ISPs. it's the ISPs fault for having zero-rating.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased newspaper with other people. What's next?
Well, I guess you can substitute anything else that currently has some sort of control on it's poseession and/or use:
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased firearms with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased explosives with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased drugs with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased smallpox virus with other people.
It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased plutonium with other people.
So banning sharing newspapers isn't the thin end of the wedge, the precedent for banning other things later. Governments have been banning (or restricting via requiring licenses/permits) the sharing of things for, well, forever.
One of the elements to this case by the FBI is that performing this work is not overly burdensome on Apple, because writing code is something apple already does, it has the staff and technical expertise in place to do the compelled work.
However, if Apple has to hire new employees to do this work, wouldn't that demolish that argument? The mere fact that they would have to hire new staff would counter the "already in place staff and skills" aspect of the argument at the very least.
And if Apple has to start firing highly-skilled engineers, with decades of experience, or engage in litigation of those same engineers to force them to honour their contracts and do that work, again, burdensome?