It doesn't work that way.

Usually, the software developer requires that you accept the EULA in order to get the right to use the software. Does that mean that you accepted the EULA if you use the software? It doesn't.

It means that if you use the software, you _either_ accepted the EULA _or_ you committed an act of copyright infringement. However, IBM cannot know which one. Therefore, they cannot do things that would be illegal if you didn't accept the EULA, like accessing your files.

(Many EULAs contain terms that allow you only limited amount of copying. That's completely legal, because either you accept the EULA and accept that you cannot make unlimited copies, or you don't accept the EULA and cannot legally make any copies at all. This EULA is different).

The article you are linking to is many years old. You can't extract anything from a modern iPhone if it is locked.

With a driver license, it's really _you_ who will be trying to convince the police officer that you have a valid license. So facial recognition isn't really needed. You're right, most of the time a police officer taking a photo of your license plate could automatically be shown photos of one or sometimes two people who are most likely driving the car and are in the system as having a license or as having no license.

If nothing comes up or the driver doesn't meet the pictures, the driver would need to give the police officer information that leads to the license. Typically name and birthday, or address, or even license number if you learned it by heart and don't want to give your name. Then same thing, the information is looked up and a picture shown to the police officer.

Problem would be if you lost your license and gave your twin brother's information. Knowing that information is probably much easier than stealing his driving license.

A police officer may be allowed to search your phone, but that doesn't do him or her any good if the phone is locked. In a warrantless search, they are allowed to look at things that are in the open, which would quite obviously exclude searching anything where they need your help.

Hiring these guys and paying them a wage would be a much much better way to give them some extra money. And do you really want to be driven around by a guy who is dog tired after a full working day? I'd rather be driven by a taxi driver who has just one job.

Can we just say that this is not "ridesharing". Ride sharing happens when I want to go from A to B, and I pick you up on the way because you want to go to a similar route.

The Uber drives have no intention to go from A to B themselves. They are sitting at home waiting from phone calls. It's a private hire car, where you rent out a car together with a driver, to transport other people for payment to places that you don't want to go yourself.

Who knows? They are meant for businesses, and they are made by IBM, and IBM is in it for the money. So significant amounts of money will change hands from customers to IBM, one way or another.

These are not web apps, these are proper apps. You know the apps that you need a PC for and not a toy tablet. Except they run on an iPad. You buy them and give them to your employees who use them for work. Which you can't do on a toy tablet. Except you can :-)

I'd say that if you are a sysadmin who somehow doesn't allow iPhones on any networks under your control, then within a week you will either have your mind changed or let go.

Uber is a taxi service. Except that it doesn't officially employ drivers and pays them a wage, it depends on drivers who have no employment that they can rely upon and who have to carry all the cost of running a car, while taking a hire cut than any other taxi company.

They try to create the illusion that they are a high tech firm connecting clients and drivers, when in reality they are just exploiting the weakest people in the job market and deliberately flout any regulations that protect their employees or customers.

In the USA, many more people kill themselves by using guns than by hanging themselves. That's probably because using a gun doesn't require one bit of brain or one bit of courage.

Call for a driver, wait for him to turn up, and fine them. Easy enough. If there's a criminal court case, we know you can be forced to decrypt your data. If it's a civil court case, you provide the decrypted data or the judge assumes that it speaks against you.

There was a link to the UK rules, which are very clear. If you provide a car with a driver, for profit beyond just expenses, to transport people from A to B, and the transport is not just a minor part of the operation, then you need a license.

In this case: Driving the neighbour for money, once or repeatedly, and mom providing transportation services, would need a license. Carpooling doesn't, because the driver wants to go from A to B himself.

Excellent link. Seems like Uber drivers fall absolutely into the category where you need a "Private Hire Vehicle" license.

Sure, cheating/robbing/harming passengers is illegal. However, calling the police doesn't help much if the driver cannot pay for the damage that they caused. That's why I would want to make absolutely sure that Uber can be held responsible for any damage that their drivers cause, just like any other business is responsible for their employers, and that Uber cannot just claim it's non of their business, when it is exactly all of their business.

The real problem for Uber when this happens is that they will most likely get sued and found liable. In Germany, because the contracts between Uber and the drivers don't really matter; Uber is a taxi company, no matter what it claims. In the USA, because you only need to be a tiny tiny bit responsible for the damages and you are on the hook for all of it.