The footage would then be automatically uploaded to storage, either locally or in the cloud, over-redacted for privacy and posted online for everyone to see within a day.

For court purposes, there can't be any redaction.

Because as soon as you start snipping out bits, you lose context and some of what actually happened.

The full video must be available for scrutiny ... or you'll get the 5 seconds which supports the police version of events, or which has been edited to alter the sequence of events.

Part of the reason people are starting to insist on body cameras is we don't trust the police. Because increasingly the police are not trustworthy, and don't know or care what the law says.

Which means all of this raw video should be held in escrow where the police have no ability to alter or delete it.

If the police hold it, and have the power to edit it ... suddenly it becomes a less trustworthy record.

So when the police start claiming they need to redact it, they better have the ability to provide the un-redacted version for court proceedings.

Believe it or not some of us like the fatty cheesy goodness on Pizza Hut pizzas, and as for meat feast, ohh baby.

Oh, trust me, I've been to a Wal Mart in the US, I know it's real.

Just don't expect anybody to take your opinion seriously about what is tasty food when you eat like a 7 year old.

Pizza Hut is grease, piled on top of oil, to the point that the bottom of the crust is fried (and this is by design). And that's quit disgusting.

You realize that putting quotes around it usually indicates that there is a nudge and wink going on at the same time

And you realize that *straight*, as written by the poster, would produce bolded text in many editors, right?

So, maybe you're not as "clever" as you think?

let us say, just for the sake of argument (i don't really believe your ignorance), that skin color and race are correlated somehow

it's a bell curve. you understand that, right?

so, for example, we have on one end one of the most cerebral presidents we've maybe ever had, at least since wilson: barack obama. obviously more intelligent than the vast majority of white people, as well as black people. more intelligent than people of all races, period

what is the value, exactly, of saying that because his skin is brown, that we have to ascribe some sort of negative modifier on how we perceive his intelligence, just because a bunch of other people who are brown are supposedly less intelligent on average?

intelligence is an INDIVIDUAL value. it does no good to class all people according to an arbitrary signifier. if you were interviewing a bunch of people for computer programmer, and disregarded the ones with brown skin because they were "less intelligent," you might have hired a dumb white person and disregarded the black genius. it does no good to you, nevermind black people, to use this shallow useless prejudice, because it doesn't actually help you. an INDIVIDUAL assessment is what matters

for example: most african americans have scottish, irish, english, etc. blood in them, because a lot of their forebearers were raped. therefore, a lot of white people were doing a lot of raping. therefore, according to racist "thinking," we should assume all white people are rapists, because we can prove they rape a lot ( i don't believe this, i'm just demonstrating your ignorance to you)

i'm not really sure this argument is worth having with you though, because i doubt you have enough intellectual capacity to appreciate the argument, since it requires a low iq to believe in racism. by believing in racism, and all of the logical fallacies that come with it, you have objectively proven to me that you are a stupid person. i don't respect you

And, of course, let's not stop there ... let's move to the managers, executives, and sales/marketing assholes who force this shit out the door.

The poor bastard of a programmer who has been told by the VP or the CEO (or the sales wanker) that the product must ship now, or that security doesn't matter is not always the cause of this. Sometimes they're the ones saying "umm, guys, this could be a problem".

So, if we're assigning blame, let's go with the people who are actually to blame and who make the decisions.

In the military, "just following orders" may not be a defense. But in private industry it's often the management who create these problems.

Which is precisely why I say that corporations should be held to a legal standard for the protection of personal information, and should carry penalties for failure to do so.

As long as corporations just say "oh, bummer dude" and have no penalties, they'll continue to cut as many corners as possible. Because there simply is no consequence for them.

I'm as concerned about the management people who don't give a damn. Because they're the ones who make policy and decide that not sucking at security is too costly.

So, want a secure internet? Kick an MBA or a CEO in the nuts, and tell them you'll keep doing it until they insist on secure code.

Well, if they choose to make it opt-in, then awesome, no harm no foul, and only people who turn it on will have it.

But when it is made opt-out, it says "fuck you, we'll track you unless you know enough to stop us".

And it's that kind of behavior which really pisses us off. It shouldn't be up to the average user to have to know where to disable this crap.

Just like they backed down on 3rd party cookies to keep the ad companies happy -- it's a sign that increasingly they're driven by money, instead of writing a good browser which doesn't have all of this shit in it.

If they make this crap opt in, nobody will bitch at them. But they haven't. And we're pissed off.

Do Not Track is useless garbage.

It doesn't stop any tracking. It's a voluntary program which doesn't mean what you think it means:

Even if you have Do Not Track turned on, that information will be collected and stored and used to create a profile of you that may or may not be accurate. That profile can be used by credit agencies, big corporations, and health insurance companies to make decisions about you that can literally affect your life and livelihood.

And it's not just the tracking industry that is ignoring the intent of Do Not Track.

If Firefox is relying on a useless fucking setting like Do Not Track to disable this advertising, then they're assholes.

Do Not Track is a complete lie in order to give the illusion corporations give a crap about your privacy or your wishes.

Want to stop being tracked? Run every ad blocker and privacy extension you can find. Because relying on some marketing asshole to not track you anyway is just stupid.

It's the piles and piles of third party shit on the internet embedded in every page which you need to be blocking.

"With Suggested Tiles, we want to show the world that it is possible to do relevant advertising and content recommendations while still respecting users' privacy and giving them control over their data."

How about no? How about some of us don't want advertising? How about you better give a mechanism to disable this crap?

What part of "not interested in your damned ads" is hard to understand?

what i find interesting is that people who ascribe moronic connections: skin color and intelligence, for example, are, by definition of making that ignorant connection and taking it seriously, stupid people. you have to be low iq to be racist. so when they prescribe exclusionary social engineering to "fix" society of the problem of undesireables, they should take their own medicine and not breed, thereby vastly increasing the iq of the population. that's some good eugenics to improvie the "race"

besides, most african americans aren't really african: too many of them were raped. analyze any of their genetics and chances are you find german, irish, english, etc heritage

so, by the "logic" of how racists think, the real race problem is that all europeans are rapists. i don't believe that. i'm just demonstrating how fucking ignorant and low iq racist "thinking" is

VirtualBox we more or less kinda allowed it to die

Ummm ... what the hell are you talking about? I use it daily, I get updates for it regularly, and it's anything but dead.

VirtualBox is alive and well.

Then I suggest finding a real Italian restaurant with a real wood-fired oven, making thin crust pizza at high heat, and with good quality toppings.

Things like Dominos and Pizza Hut? Well, they're pretty much the most nasty form of disgusting greasy pizza known to man.

If you're using those as your benchmark for pizza, you're doing it wrong. Just like if you're using McDonald's as a benchmark for what a good burger should be.

Well, if you only have a nice academic abstraction in a book which is the language ... sure, that's awesome and all.

And then in the real world the platform, and its many variations, becomes an issue.

It's been years since I wrote in Java, but we'd get the regular updates of the platform, which may or may not have broken something. You'd get every vendor having their own JVM, or their extensions.

So you'd write a webapp for one platform and test it, and then someone would cram it into yet another proprietary variant which wasn't compatible. Which usually left the customer screeching that when you listed the platforms you supported, that it didn't work on the one they had which you'd never tested against.

And don't even get me stared on the shitware which Java wants to install now. Sorry, Oracle, but we don't give a fuck about your stupid Ashole.com toolbar.

So, yes, maybe in some perfect little bubble which doesn't depend on the platform Java is an awesome language. But in the real world, it seems like many things were a moving target, and that the platform gave you more sources of grief than the language.

I've lost count of the number of applications I've seen which the vendor basically says "we are compatible with this version of Java, and nothing else".

In that regards, as much as I like the actual language ... the platform can be a pain in the ass.

I don't know what it's like now (as I said, haven't directly used it in years). But there was a time when there was so much fragmentation as to make the "write once/run anywhere" a really bad joke.

Yes, and how many of those devices are supposed to support the factory reset which wipes all the storage?

What's that? All of them?

Full disk encryption is one of 5 problems they found, but not the main one.

the researchers found that all retained at least partial amounts of data from contacts information, images and video, SMS, email, and data from third-party apps like Facebook.

They were able to recover Google authentication tokens in all devices with flawed factory reset, and were able to access master tokens in 80 percent of cases.

To test their findings, they used one of the recovered master tokens from a reset to restore the credential file.

Disk encryption, in theory, should make the factory reset more robust. But the sense I get is that the factory reset is complete garbage independent of encryption on some of these devices.

Which mostly reaffirms that I have no interest in anything but the stock Google Android. Because by the time another entity has gotten their hands on it and tweaked it to advance their own commercial interests , you really have no idea of what holes they've introduced, and you have no idea how long before they'll drop support for it.

Carrier certification is shorthand for "all of our crapware needs to be checked if we get around it". The shit carriers put on phones is for their benefit, not ours. Because it's intended to drive traffic to their garbage.

what's crazier than lame algorithms is trolls and racists having so much time and energy to devote to mental vomit generation

when attempting to understand something pathetic and useless, do not think "it has to be a machine," you give humanity too much credit. never underestimate how much of a depraved loser someone can become

Or, you know, she can't talk about future technology decisions because it would either violate confidentiality agreements or SEC rules for insider trading.

I've personally been someone who had to (for purely technical reasons) suddenly become classed as an insider for trading purposes for the remainder of a quarter -- because I suddenly knew something which could materially relate to future financial statements or hint at deals which aren't yet public.

Our research and development teams are working on various solutions when it comes to energy storage but I can't provide specifics as to what exactly we're focused on for the future.

I don't even think it's that unusual for an executive chief engineer to more or less have to say "I'm not allowed to talk to you about that".

Did you expect her to release trade secrets and future company directions just for an interview? Because that would be silly.