Good God! I freaking amazes me how many people, apparently Mike included, feel compelled to come to the defense of companies trying to strong arm local government. Somehow believing that because those companies used a newer technology to operate, they must somehow be above reproach?
Uber, and Lyft were/are trying to strong-arm the government into writing laws specifically tailored for their monopoly. They were (past tense) the only companies operating in town when they spent millions of dollars spreading false statistics so they could further their own agenda. In an immature hissy-fit they've now left Austin, and been REPLACED WITH FIVE LEGAL (and one questionable) ALTERNATIVES. Five companies that want to operate legally, with the local government, and community.
People around here in particular, like to complain about how lobbyists are rewriting the laws for their greedy desires. But now when the local community stands up and tries to stop them, how many of you are siding with those same lobbyists?
And to Mike specifically;
What the hell dude! Talk about bad reporting. First off you forget to mention that there's five fully legal ride sharing alternatives currently operating in Austin. Instead you concentrate, and ONLY MENTION THE ONE QUESTIONABLY LEGAL OPERATION! What the hell?
Then the article you link to doesn't even come close to supporting that bull shit statistic that you so blindly parroted. In fact, it shows that ride sharing made no impact on DWI's at all.
Let me repeat that, RIDE SHARING MADE NO IMPACT ON DWI ARRESTS!
Between June 2015 and February 2016, the number of DWI-related wrecks increased by 4 percent when compared with the same nine-month time period in 2014 and 2015, a Statesman analysis found.
Over the past five years, the largest decrease in that June-to-February time period occurred between 2012 and 2013, when the number of drunken driving accidents dropped by 26 percent. That was before Lyft and Uber came to Austin.
In the Statesman analysis, the figures for each period run from June, the month that ride-hailing services came to Austin in 2014, to February, the most recent month that statistics were available.
So Google Fiber is looking like a "disruption to the present broadband market?" That is great marketing speak. Unfortunately the truth is more dismal.
Speaking for here in Austin, Google Fiber is running an estimated 18 months behind schedule. And as far as I know, they still haven't hooked up customer #1 yet. Being an Austin resident, residing slightly outside one of the first three "fiber-hoods" they designated, I don't expect to see Google Fiber for at least two years. If not five.
I don't know, maybe all of this may be normal for rolling out a large fiber network, in a sprawling city. However, to me, it's looking like Google Fiber is having issues. If their roll out rate remains the same in other towns, any stories right now about "how disruptive they are," are a good decade too early.
I have a Google Fiber t-shirt, Google Fiber shopping bags, Google Fiber pens, Google Fiber water bottles. The only thing I don't have? Google Fiber.
Unfortunately I'm the barer of bad news here, so I'll start off with saying explicitly that I DO NOT CONDONE ANY PART OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO EXPLAIN. I've been trying for the past few months to get the main stream media to pick up the story, alas with no luck.
A technique that is nicely called "HTTPS Snooping" (or more accurately called Man-In-The-Middle-Attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack), is available from companies like Cisco, and Websense. These solutions are currently deployed at companies that are snooping on their employees.
Most companies fear malware, and corporate espionage, and thus justify snooping on private communications of their employees. More respectable companies limit what they can see to things like GMail, and unknown addresses. Less respectable companies (like I've ran across) snoop all traffic, including banking, and health care. Would you really want your fellow employees to know your bank account balance, or what medications you're currently taking? How about your boss?
All of this happens by terminating the HTTPS connection at at a border, or firewall system. The traffic is then decrypted, scanned, re-encrypted and transferred to the end user. All of this works because the end user's system is told to accept the local certificate from the firewall system. The User doesn't recognize that anything is going on, because to their browser, the certificate is valid, and it's encrypted. So to them, everything is working perfectly, and they have no clue that their traffic is being snooped on. When they transmit back (say their login/password information) all of their communications simply reverse the process. The information is encrypted with the local firewall certificate, transmitted to that firewall, decrypted, scanned, and re-encrypted for the end system using the official certificate from that site.
Right now, these systems are deployed on large, paranoid corporate networks. However, it scales very simply. All an ISP would have to do is deploy a larger system (or array of systems) to do the same thing. They could convince their end users to use this system, by telling them to "Install This Network Acceleration Software," that would install their local certificate, and proxy all the traffic through their systems.
With government assistance, they could force say Network Solutions to issue a certificate that is officially signed for all networks. Then the local ISP wouldn't have to require people to install their own local certificate. They could simply pass the certificate down just like normal, and everyone's system would accept it because it was officially signed.
I'll leave the full ramifications of this process, and the problems with certificate based encryption up to others to discuss. I'll simply say this breaks the Internet, and how it was designed.
If you want a more technical in-depth discussion, this was a recent topic on /. (http://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/06/16/223208/ask-slashdot-whats-your-take-on-https-snooping) including me describing my own run in with these systems.
Siri, Apple's newest twist on artificial intelligence did start directing people who asked "what is the best smartphone ever" to the Nokia Lumia 900 over the weekend. So, apparently even Siri knows that Apple can't compete any more!
From the viewpoint of a photographer, I'd think he'd pursue defamation of character, libel, and probably a few other civil items. The FBI certainly knew (or should have known) who is was, and although he could be considered a celebrity, they definitely knew the situation was false.
This is no different than the National Inquirer publishing a false story. The only way they get away with it on a regular basis, is they buy the stories from people that tell them it's true. Once they know it's false, publishing it would be negligence under the Sullivan rule. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan)
I do this day in, and day out. I'm doing it right now. I constantly refresh my news feeds, my Facebook stalker feed, and occasionally my LinkedIn feed all looking for little tidbits of data. Something, anything to give me hope that things are getting better. That somewhere, someplace someone has figured out a plan to straighten things out again.
The worse things get, the worse news I find, the more intense I search. There's got to be a way out of this mess the world is coming to. Now if I could just find it.
As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.
--George Orwell, "1984"
I understand that the rest of the world deals with airport/airplane security by concentrating on "who is flying" instead of "what they bring on-board." However, in the U.S. that probably won't work as effectively. Specifically because, it will still be a government ran agency making the determination.
For example, would you agree to a credit check before you boarded a plane? The first time it appears that someone who was in "massive debt" (ie: most everyone in America) took payment to bring something on a flight, it will happen. Are you unemployed, and flying to a job interview somewhere? Sorry about you luck, you're now a security risk!
How about your driving record? Get a speeding ticket on the way to the airport? Sorry, you're reckless and distracted. You must be a terrorist!
Taxes? Are you about to be audited? What do you have to live for? You must be a terrorist!
How about medical records? Just diagnosed with a fatal condition, and want to spend your remaining days with family? What do you have to live for? You must be a terrorist!
No, "who" over "what" doesn't solve the problem, as long as the deranged puppet masters of this security theatre are still making the rules.
Government has to solve the problem, that's what government is there for. However, the mentality and approach used to determine who is a threat has to change. Ignoring humanity, and liberty to appease the paranoid will achieve nothing.