Yeah! When I purchase something, please make sure my account can't be identified as the one to subtract from!

While offenders may deserve shame, it is:

1. 1. Not fair that some offenders get shamed and some don't (on top of paying the normal penalty), depending on the whims of the police; in the U.S. this would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause;
2. 2. Illegal that the police are effectively adding their own punishment, without any legal basis, on top of the punishment put into law by elected lawmakers --- if lawmakers had wanted public shaming to be part of the punishment, they could have made it so;
3. 3. Unconstitutional that the punishment will apparently be put on accused rather than convicted people.

I wouldn't want to get hurt and not have my medical insurance card or ID, when my phone battery happens to be dead.

There was a Doctor Who novel, I think this one, The Murder Game by Steve Lyons, where there was an "Assassination program"... a sophisticated malware package that just required to be configured with the victim's name, and it would search out means to physically kill them via computer-controlled objects.

I'm no expert, but even today it sounds almost possible. You need: (1) a way of tying victims to physical objects and locations (DMV records, toy purchases, planning permission applications, ... ), (2) hacks for physical objects (cars, street lights, Mindstorm Legos, home automation systems, ...), (3) a worm/virus base to spread the code to computer systems physically near the objects.

If that sounds like an implausible engineering effort, remember that malware packages are incrementally improved on and made more powerful over time... it would start out with some simple and unlikely-to-succeed algorithms, and evolve into something with a huge array of killing options.

(Maybe at that point people would start taking privacy seriously.)

But for an example of when this is a bad idea, look at Netflix. Their decision to become a content provider puts them in direct competition with those with whom they're trying to negotiate streaming contracts. They lost track of their original raison d'être --- to be a place to watch whatever you want --- and have been doing a poor job of expanding their rental/streaming catalog.

Simulations and real tests aren't mutually exclusive. They have different strengths, and you should do both.

"Pseudo-autonomy" is where the driver is expected to be alert and ready to take over. Therefore,

Autonomous car is to Chauffeur
as
Pseudo-autonomous car is to Student Driver

Ever chaperoned a student driver? Nerve-wracking, and harder than just driving the car yourself. Forget it.

Yeah the Second Amendment sucks. But the Bill of Rights is too important. PLEASE DON'T MESS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Do you really want to open up a discussion on whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion needs a little "fixing"? For every enumerated right that you care about, there are huge numbers of people who'd be glad to see it deleted.

If 1/10 of users use "password" as the password, randomly pick a set of N users (where N is the "threshold", they suggest a small number like 1<N<5) and assume their password is "password". It will only take around (1/10)^N attempts for the assumption to be correct, and then you can derive the key. So to be effective it really relies on good password rules.

To another point, if only administrators have threshold accounts, this has the same result (and is more complicated) than using Secret Sharing to have N administrators share an ordinary encryption key (which would then be retained only in memory) for encrypting the salted hashes.

BTW look toward the bottom of the paper for a nice roundup of alternative techniques.

No. I bill my time at $200 per hour. Someone wants me to spend half an hour fixing their logistics error, for free? And involuntarily?