This is the part I'm most interested in. Did Chris really say these things or did the FBI want to hear a specific narrative and perhaps twist or misunderstand his remarks about what he believes is possible into "something he did"?

Chris isn't talking and I'm disinclined to accept FBI statements at face value. I will be very interested in hearing Chris's account of what he actually said to the FBI.

It's also easy enough for Mozilla to claim you won't be locked into any ecosystem because they don't have one. For Android at least the ecosystem is what makes it so valuable (for Apple I'm guessing it's about 50% cool electronic jewellery and 50% ecosystem).

I didn't buy my Android phone to make a social statement, I bought it because of the Android ecosystem. The ecosystem is a feature, not a flaw.

20 years ago I was impressed when I was first able to move entire windows around the screen in real-time on a Pentium 90mhz machine running NT 3.5.1.

Today I half heartedly expect articles to talk about the responsiveness of calculator applications.

I rather like the old Internet before it was completely invaded by hoards of "sociopaths" who discovered easy ways to profit by making peoples lives miserable.

This guys raison detre is spreading the word about how these systems can be compromised. The question is whether he actually did it for realz.

People are adept at finding evidence supporting their presuppositions. A disease whose only cure is actively searching for evidence contradicting your assumptions.

He supposedly was in seat 2A... from search warrant:

"He said he was able to remove the cover for the SEB under the seat in front of him by wiggling and squeezing the box".

"After removing the cover to the SEB that was installed under the passenger seat in front of his seat..."

"A special agent with the FBI advised that the SEBs under seats 2A and 3A showed signs of tampering. The SEB under 2A was damaged. The outer cover of the box was open approx. 1/2 inch and one of the retaining screws was not seated and was exposed".

So I'm really confused here the statements are not self consistent. The seat in front of 2A is 1A... wouldn't that be the SEB that showed signs of tampering?

2A is under his seat...and 3A is under the seat BEHIND him.... so he not only screwed with his SEB without anyone noticing but got up moved to the seat behind him and screwed with that one too? In first class of all places? Does this make any sense?

Did the agents conduct a survey of the condition of all SEBs on the aircraft and other similar aircrafts? Is the condition of the panel abnormal? Do they even know? Did they even check?

Maybe all of this government sponsored asshattery will encourage more people to get off their asses and invest more effort into fixing all of our broken shit.

If governments want to piss away their capabilities hacking their own people because they can then let them do it and fuck themselves over.

LEAs are not rational actors. You will get fucked if you assume otherwise. Your hubris can and will be used against you.

Never going to happen. Site owners are not trustworthy.

Practically all advertising platforms push ads from their own servers not the website you are visiting for the simple reasons it is easy to do and more importantly ad networks don't trust site owners due to obvious direct conflict of interest. It is trivial to block most ads without inspecting traffic. A few ACLs in an ordinary router or blackholing several dozen domains in DNS would do the trick quite effectively. No exotic proxies or DPI required.

The Interesting thing some types of filters are quite effective at denying capabilities to cross-site-stalkers which can enhance rather than degrade your privacy.

I don't even care about advertising it is the considerable number of assholes who think they have a right to follow everyone around everywhere they go on the Internet that can eat static as far as I'm concerned. Most people have no clue because they can't see it... but anyone can get one real quick by spending a few minutes with wireshark while visting their favorite websites.

Any ISP who forces filtering on their customers or requires installing rouge certificates to use their service is obviously inexcusable. From TFA it is not clear that ISPs actually intent to have the filtering be anything other than opt-in. It seems to be more about hyperbole and hersay than objective reality.

Competing with others... ROFL...

ISPs should only be screwing with customers packets if users ask them to. Don't see a problem with opt-in filtering services generally as long as they remain opt-in. The Internet is a hostile environment and people have the right of self defense.

*IF* ISPs actually intent to extort money from content companies the respective governments where such ISPs operate might have something to say about that.

I don't know what to make of this. It sounds like carefully worded propaganda to lead people to make assumptions based on hearsay alone. Do ISPs plan to drop "the bomb" or not? .. "there is a suggestion" ..... suggestion?????!? ... Is there evidence?

Sure. I didn't want to go into that much detail though because it would have ended up as an essay, psychopath/sociopath is the general-public term while psychologists talk about personality disorders with a severity rated on a standard diagnostic like the Hare Psychopath Checklist (PCL-R). Simplifying that down for public consumption to "Joe is a psychopath/Fred is a sociopath" loses quite a lot of detail. For people interested in this, read "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson, for a more technical discussion try Bob Hare's "Without Conscience". However, no amount of reading can really prepare you for your first encounter with an actual psychopath/sociopath, it's like a rabbit encountering a cute doggie and not realising it's facing down a timber wolf.

Well yeah, obviously the vibrate feature is going to drain the battery pretty quickly. How long does it last when she uses the camera though?

Suspected psychopaths can be identified through other traits, however if they're sufficiently high-functioning it typically takes a forensic psychologist and a bit of time to resolve. So you have to have both suspicion that someone is a pathological liar and access to a trained person to sort things out. So on the one hand it doesn't make them magically immune to investigation, but it does require different resources than standard police techniques. FBI staff for example do get some training in this area, but you need to have experience interviewing actual psychopaths to prepare you for dealing with them, it's one thing reading about them but quite another experiencing them in person.

(Incidentally, if people think Hannibal Lecter when they hear "psychopath" then think again, although he had some psychopathic traits (grandiose sense of self), he was really just yet another Hollywood-ised mad killer. The character from Wolf of Wall Street is probably the closest Hollywood has come to an accurate portrayal of a psychopath).