I think it is important that the government be upfront on the real risks that they are facing. The "why" of why they are doing this. Countries are at real risk from outside influence and coordinated attack by outside state and possibly private actors. Effectively, the physical borders are gone and attach can happen at any level. I agree that responsible encryption is important. The responsibility is to thwart attack. The problem is that being blind to traffic is not the biggest threat to the government, it is penetration. If they expect that can work to a state where they can view all traffic, those days have gone. They need to focus on penetration and hardening and help companies, state and local governments, and citizens to harden openings in their communications such as firewalls, tunnels, and encryption as well as secure ways to harden accessing of those communications such as sandboxing and process filtering so that penetration isn't compromised by receipt of communications. That is the government's responsibility to the country, whatever country it may be. Ours isn't doing very well. It just allowed its key system to be compromised with the Equifax hack of the security through obscurity SSN method of identification. How long is that going to take to remediate vs. Esontia? If the US government feels the need to get with business to talk about encryption, it should always keep an eye to ensuring it is unbreakable and public. Public scrutiny is important for rooting out flaws.
There is no private cause of action under HIPAA, though there have been successful cases where the covered provider was successfully sued in state court using a HIPAA violation as evidence of negligence or failure to provide due care.
The patent system needs peer review.
The patent office should be judging patent applications against the state of the art, or what obvious to anyone with knowledge in an area. Unfortunately, they don't have that knowledge and instead judge against the patent database, which has nothing to do with current ideas, development, or products that might already be shipping. Everything is new to them because they compare it against history. Nothing is obvious to them because they don't understand much of what comes before them.
Even with the finger made available to them, it is still law enforcement's problem to figure out which direction to swipe. That knowledge is of the mind.
e) Supreme Court finds there is a compelling government interest and takes away another right.
I read the article and then decided before I looked that if the number of comments was over 30 then the article may have merit. There were over 40 so I guess the trolls showed up proving the point of the article. Hey trolls, keep posting. You are only proving the point.
What does a strike have to do with anything? At all? If Verizon can not effectively staff their business then that sounds like a personal problem to me.
When I act like a dick to a police officer I get exactly what most white men over 50 get - nothing. Why? Because it is my right. I don't have to show anyone respect and if I let a police officer know it they can over react and I will own their ass or they can control themselves and follow the law. The problem is that when they are facing someone they feel they can take advantage of many do so.
No one is due respect just for who they are or what they do for a living. No one. It is up to each individual to decide who they wish to show respect. Except... a police officer is expected to respect the law at ALL times and be in control of their adrenaline rushes.
What happened? Legislative bodies created bad laws that the citizenry did not agree with. In the last half century for instance, the 55 MPH speed limit taught the general population that police were the enemy.
Way before that, police were used to break unions and enforce the have for those that already had against the have nots.
It all started in 1847 in the US.
If we are to have a discussion on how to fix things then we need to roll back the frame of reference for the discussion concerning policing to before 1847 when police forces were put in place and put everything on the table.
Maybe the payload they are threatening to unload on America is not a bomb but is instead this trojan.
Let us see how many states respect his trademark and don't include the name "Trump" on the ballot.
Ah, back in the good old days when everyone in your town knew about your past and would happily hold it against you to the point that you might feel the need to uproot and move across the country where it was legal for someone to follow you, point, and shriek like you were a body snatcher.
There is a need to differentiate between workplace disciple and possible criminal investigation.
I would suggest that any contract that allows access to evidence in a criminal investigation is itself illegal and can not be made with an officer or the union because doing so would create a special class that would have equal protection problems.
Maybe if there is a question the department should temporarily forgo the discipline issue and should be more willing to conduct a criminal investigation independent of the department and union relationship should reasonable suspicion arise.
Related to this, Fiat Chrysler instructs their dealers to activate these systems before a new car leaves the lot. The end user isn't always the one who "accepts" the license agreement so no contract exists.
I did not see in the article that the FBI had quit this surveillance - only that they corrected the procedural requirement.
The laws has exemptions otherwise it would not have passed 1st Amendment scrutiny.