Because murderers, kidnappers, and murdered victims also use phones. The article includes commentary from an Indiana State Police task force which claims to have used information from warrants on phones to protect children in some manner.
So? Murderers and kidnappers will benefit from being able to access their victims phone - after all the phone was already weakened to support such access.
Also: murderers and kidnappers don’t have to use broken cryptography. So again the only people who are harmed are people who aren’t criminals.
Also the statement from the Indiana police is extremely vague, and doesn’t make any details available about what they were doing.
Sure. And so has the IRS, which “persuaded a federal judge”, according to the article.
I guess they thought it was a reasonable request to get the data of the 25,000 US citizens who made significant profit with bitcoin in those years, when only a few hundred reported such earnings in total.
It's not just a matter of tracking those that cashed out as taxes are on the net profits of individual trades. Even converting between coins (ex: sell BTC, buy ETH) is a taxable event.
The 4th amendment does not prevent combing through public data (the blockchain), nor does it prevent going through due process to obtain data (the coinbase order).
>* Packets resembling sound data being caught in flight.
Not even necessary. You could do keyword recognition on the device itself, pushing a list of keyword<->waveform maps, and sending an indicator when they're recognized.
Google seems to halfass a lot of their products. I really had expected it would at least be live in the Bay Area right now. It's not like Google doesn't have the money.
My understanding is that homeowners in the bay area have some next level NIMBY ism that even Google can't overcome. Those fiber huts have to go somewhere...
Maybe this is an overreaction to being stuck with Australian internet for the past decade, but if anyone in my neighbourhood was to resist the installation of fibre it'd be fucking on for young and old.
Actually we finally got NBN on my street and I am syncing at 75mbit (paying for 100) and frankly I am over the moon. The fastest I have had previous, after living all over AU, was 14mbit down, and I was the envy of my friends for that roaring waterfall of data.
Everyone else I know is on around 8mbit even in 2018.
Hoping against hope that we get a similar result when NBN rolls around to my neighbourhood. It would be absolutely awful for them to "upgrade" our system, after waiting so long for this, to the exact same or worse speeds as the ADSL we've been stuck with all this time.
And yet companies like AT&T and Comcast have been able to improve their infrastructure and launch fiber in more and more areas in the Bay Area (it's more than just San Francisco, you know!)
The cause is not NIMBYism, or any other negative traits you might try to tag on to people from the Bay, but rather, the existing telecom companies and their attempts to protect their pseudo-monopoly.
Well, when you spend several million dollars to buy a house I understand you're likely to be afraid of anything that threaten your investment and turning NIMBY.
It was more PR that delivery. In my area AT&T brought fiber and we were not in an area important enough for Google. Bemoan the big cable and phone companies all we want but they deliver a lot more and quietly. For me any time I read about one of the internet big tech companies rolling out service traditionally performed by older companies as nothing more than a PR grab.
People at work were all excited when the announcement for our major metropolitan area was announced until the areas were given and it was like, what is the point if your in such limited areas?
I know more outside of my metro Atlanta area with fiber than within. that to me is just backwards but I will take it. I like my hick neighborhood and with fiber I can work from home a lot more
That's what I am thinking when people talk about tax cuts. Apple or Google don't need more money. They already have more than they can invest productively.
That's an explanation -- another is that Apple and Google believe that future uses of the resources could yield greater aggregate return (or serve as a bulwark against a downturn).
Sounds like you/porsche can allow lock/unlock access via blockchain, using smart contracts. Does this open the door (no pun intended) for governments to deliver subpoenas for getting access to locked cars? Convenience is always at the expense of freedom.
Do you think this could be used by rental agencies and car sharing services without having to be managed by Porsche? What about privacy; would it be possible to identify the current occupant of a particular car from inspecting a public ledger?
From a certain perspective I agree, and though I am a free market capitalist to my core, the free market doesn't preclude an organization behaving in a communist fashion; the free market simply doesn't require it. I very much encourage things like this.
If startups were making progress this slow on things like self-driving cars, we'd be very underwhelmed. At this rate, we'll all be dead before the majority of cancer treatments are successful.
Technology starts off slow and then, as the base of knowledge upon which one can build expands, it snowballs into daily breakthroughs and progress before plateauing and repeating.
In other words: different industries. Apples and oranges. Do you really think only programmers have creativity and innovation?
Yup, my background is in biophysics but I do software engineering because it's relatively easy. billion-line codebases aren't really complicated to a single cell.
I mean, we've had a small percentage of the planet's human population * 65 years or so to engineer code complexity?
Even given intelligent (depending on the code's author) design vs random evolutionary pressure... every living thing on the planet * billions (/Sagan voice) of years is a long time to compete with.
