"The real problem that government has with the drug trade is that it's all untaxed revenue."
If only that were true, because that would be the easiest problem in the world for the government to solve. All they'd have to do is legalize and tax it.
I use the jack on my cellphone all the time, and it's worked very well for me over the years. I can't think of a single phone I've had that it failed on.
So, I guess, YMMV.
In all fairness, this is already the case, at least in my part of the woods. People in public talk on speakerphone everywhere for no damned good reason.
It's mostly, but not solely, iPhone users. I really don't understand why this has started happening.
The thing is that the reason these devices began to use the audio jack was Apple's move to the lightning connector.
Perhaps that's a part of Apple's thinking here -- too many companies were working around the need to pay an Apple Tax, so they want to close that loophole.
In other words, "you've already made your choice, serf, so you must now tolerate all further abuse without complaint"?
I disagree.
I don't think the commentary is posing the notion of a "free speech zone" except that the entirely of twitter should be one. The point is that it should also be a "free to ignore" zone.
Sounds reasonable to me. Someone's right to free speech does not mean that I should be compelled to listen to that speech.
Well, maybe not public transport.
http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/dart-eyeing-facial-recognition-software-for-its-buses-trains-and-stations.html/
"dont look to China as if your own nations arent doing this and more"
Don't worry, nobody is.
I'm not sure why that's a relevant point to what AAC was saying, but I will add a simple historical truth.
The average person doesn't care about the security of anything until they get bitten. Sooner or later, people will start to get bitten by the security problems in newer technologies.
When that happens, people will start to care. Companies who are already prepared for that will become the new kings of the hill.
"It's the copyright office's mandate to do so"
Since when?
No firmware changes are required to support each car having a unique key. Also, there is no technical reason why the car manufacturer would have to have a record of the key that goes with each car.
"So long as the firmware key is not varied per-car, a simple dictionary attack will crack the car open easily."
This isn't correct. Most remote car unlockers use a rotating key system or a computational exchange, specifically to foil dictionary attacks or attackers sniffing the unlock signal to reproduce it. There are a few different ways this is done, some better than others, but the net effect is that a different key is needed for each unlock.
What would be the basis of the lawsuit? Factor in that there's almost certainly wording in the license agreement that to the effect that there is no promise of fitness for purpose or that bugs will be fixed.
It also depends on when the floppies were made. Earlier floppies were of substantially higher quality than later floppies, and tend to last multiple decades unless abused.
"If they used different keys that would also mean needing to maintain different copies of the firmware or at least track which car has which key. Manufacturers also might need to have access to keys."
Ummm, no.
In Russia, everyone has dashboard cameras in their cars to protect themselves. Perhaps it's time in the US for everyone to wear their own body cameras.
The ruling has nothing to do with private databases. It's about whether or not NCMEC was bound by the Fourth Amendment when it performed a search.
"the best way to make men respect laws is to make laws respectable."
I do agree with this. The nature of the laws and the means by which they're enforced are the primary influences over how much respect there is for law.
I have read numerous articles here and elsewhere about the security problems in every one of the other things you have mentioned. I don't see a single-minded focus on IoT issues at all.
"What happens when any yokel can order one off alibaba.com for 5 bucks."
No need to even do that if you have a smartphone. There are plenty of bluetooth sniffer apps that use your phone's hardware.
Re:
Spoofing your MAC address might work, but you'd need to change it frequently. Perhaps every 15 minutes or so? The only other method I can think of to avoid this would be to turn your WiFi off.