While I agree with th sentiment here I don't think it serves us to focus on details such as ease of use or lack thereof. While that definitely impacts the number of people using strong encryption today that certainly won't always be the case.
I think the most salient point we can make is that there is no end to methods of encryption. If we legislate or weaken one type, people will use another. That is true now and it will be true long after your corrupt government has fallen.
I'm generally against copyright and for Aereo but suggesting the difference between Aereo and a local recording box is merely cable length is simple-minded at best.
Yes the internet is effectively a wire but on the other end is a paid service, not just an antenna. They're receiving, transcoding and transmitting digital video, not just piping RF signals down copper.
They knew they were on shaky ground, they played their hand, they lost. It sucks but c'est la vie. This was never a way to bring about copyright reform.
Mike, it's pretty sad that you're letting your personal views of Apple get in the way of your job once again. You're advocating for malware to be developed that could expose hundreds of millions of devices to attack. It's bad enough that Android has so many attack vectors, you do no service to your readers trying to add one to the more secure iOS.
The scanner on the iPhone uses optics and RF, it won't be fooled by photos, gummi bears or cut off fingers. The stored scan data is more like a hash than an image; the NSA hacking your phone and grabbing that data doesn't do them much good.
As for the tinfoil hats, Apple is a hardware and services company, they have little incentive to steal your data or allow it to be stolen. As opposed to, say, a mobile operating system developer who is also the world's largest ad network.
With communism the government owns the corporations. What you have is a system where the corporations own the government. That's capitalism - everyone hails the almighty dollar. It's also very conservative (as opposed to liberal)
While I agree there's the potential for this spying to be used against political adversaries, I think it's a bit tinfoil hatish to say that's happening already, and given this system was put in place during the Bush administration it clearly wasn't designed to keep Obama in power.
I'm not sure I agree that just because something is publicly available on the internet that anyone else can copy and post that information on their own site, particularly for commercial gain. What if instead of ads these were pictures or videos? Would it still be ok in your mind, Mike, for some other site to scrape that content and publish it themselves, even if with attribution?
I'm not a fan of litigation over these sorts of things in general but I can't help but see CL's point here.
The iPad was a good call, it's by far the best and most popular tablet. The problem is that so much news can be had for free, so why pay for it? Apps like Flipboard and Pulse launched while thy were trying to convince people to pay. Oops.
Mike you'd look a lot more like a real journalist if you left your anti-Apple bias out of your writing.