Sorry. It is not clear to me where the camera is going to be pointed. At the driver? Or forward like all those awesome Russian dashcams?
If forward, like the Russian dashcams, then that actually makes sense. They can use it after an accident to determine who is at fault. You are renting THEIR car. They should have the right to see how you drive it.
If it is recording the driver and passengers, then yea, that is problematic.
Recall the insane situation where NSA employees are not allowed to view the information that Edward Snowden leaked. If any NSA computer touches such information, it has to be destroyed. Yet Joe Public is free to read it all he wants.
This is because the security clearance permission of the NSA employees constrains what they are able to consume.
So what happens when AT&T forgets to honor their "no tracking" pledge? Or they start making exceptions that it becomes worthless?
In other words. They collect $30 a month, but we have no way to know that they haven't just tracked us anyhow. You can't sue them because they force no-suite clauses in their contract. And you can't prove that they failed unless some AT&T whistleblower gives them up.
It would help if the legislators had the balls to decrease the scope of whom they label "sex offender". They should have limited this to pedophiles, which is what I, and I think the public, assumed it was meant to address.
If you are convicted of taking a wizz on wall in an alley in the middle of the night, you are considered a sex offender.
If you make the mistake of being a teenager and sleeping with a girl under 18, you are a sex offender.
If you are a teenager, and a teen friend sends you a sext, or you send one, you are a sex offender.
And so on and so on. The law makes no distinction between the monsters who really need to locked up for life, and ordinary people on the other end of the "sex offender" spectrum.
In today's Wall Streek Journal editorial page, top letter from the WSJ was bitching about this move by the FCC and how terrible it was for the American way of business.
I stopped reading it about half way through. Yes, they have a good point, that government rules always add friction. And in an ideal world, we would not have them.
But the rest of the editorial was the same old BS. It works perfect now! Why are we breaking it then? No company would dare piss off if its customers by implementing discrimination (despite all evidence to the contrary).
Man that letter ticked me off. I guess when Verizon buys full page ads in your paper, they get to write the editorials.
I was thinking about this. These guys were busted because they had not learned the tricks of how to spy on love interest without being detected. They were newbies.
I suspect there are a lot of very smart guys at the NSA who know how people who do this are caught, and how to do this without being caught.
I thought of a way on the way in this morning. What about indirect look ups? We know the NSA is allowed to have 3 to 4 hops of relationships. So don't look her up directly. Instead, look up someone who knows someone she knows. Then *voila*, your girlfriend's profile comes along for the ride.
The NSA analyst can honestly claim he had no knowledge of the person he asked to look at.
I consider myself libertarian. But I agree with Utah on this one. You shouldn't be allowed to operate an uninsured vehicle.
Here is California the uninsured vehicles are out of control. People can buy 1-day insurance policies, just long enough to get the registration past the DMV. It is total BS.
A friend of mine was hit and seriously injured by a woman who bought insurance from the back of a van in the downtown LA Mexican market. Guess what? It turned out to be nothing but a worthless piece of paper. She was uninsured, yet the police let her walk. As far as we know, she is still driving around LA hitting people with her car.
I really wish my state would implement a system like they have in other countries. You have to pre-pay 6 to 12 months of insurance in order to get your registration. You pay through the DMV. That way every car is insured.
I don't think that he is requiring a conviction. I think now all the police have to do is claim there was a crime (that is file charges). I suspect that nothing will change. Instead they will just start filing the paperwork with the DA now. The DA will of course dismiss the charges, and the police get to keep the money/car/whatever.
I wish Holder had simply said that a conviction was required.
I also wish he had said that people don't have to sue to get their property back. Nor do people have to settle for less than 100%. If they fail to prove a crime, then they have to return ALL the property immediately. Right now they make you sue them and fight it for years.
I am saddened when I see the partisan sniping about cable TV news networks. "Faux News".. "Clinton News Network". Really?
News flash! All news networks have an agenda. The newspapers and magazines do too. In other news, water is wet.
What I can't understand is why anyone would choose to consume their news via a cable news show in the first place regardless of their political slant. It just seems so inefficient.
It is far more efficient for me to use web based news aggregators to find the news I am interested in. It lets me read it as my schedule. I can choose to invest my time in subjects that deeply interest me. It gives the news service a way to do their job the best they can.
The few times I have watched cable news, I find their information is at best half baked, speculative, and sometimes just plain wrong. Unless I need to know that a comet is about to land on my head, I don't need breaking news.
For example, two cops are murdered in NYC. That is legit news. So take your time news writers. Do the research, put it in context, then present it to me when you are done. I don't need to know this today. It serves me zero good in regard to the decisions I need to make today.
I really hope more and more people are thinking like I do and tuning out the cable news noise. It is no better than the entertainment news, all junk food for the brain.
It might be the case that the publishers refuse to license books to a platform that doesn't have a working DRM in place. So Adobe had to whip up a new one, just good enough to meet the demands of the publishers, existing customers be dammed.