why use different labels for the same thing?

The US wants to do EXACTLY what Cameron announced. They just don't want anybody to know about it.

The main negative is....ebooks... Publishers want to gouge people for having the text of a book read to them, and would rather screw over blind people than permit Apple to read the text of ebooks for no additional charge. Some publishers have some kind of workaround for blind people, so they don't come across as complete douchebags, but the workarounds also tend to be a hassle.

It's still bad, because it is still not against the law, just against the current administrations policy. So, the next administration can still do whatever they want.

For example, Obama said he wanted the law changed for the NSA instead of him just stopping them directly [because he has the legal power and authority to do so with immediate effect] because the next administration could just start it again.

Course, he also did this for prosecuting illegal aliens [not doing so], which the next administration could start up again.

So, this sort of thing seems to be more of a "these laws we agree with, so we will enforce them, and these other laws we don't, so we won't really enforce them".

can't be any worse than the reall cnn.com

not even that. it's the idea that if the last person buying any shares of a company for does it for $X/share, then ALL shares of the company can be sold for that much.

"Words cannot express how sorry we are. The next time, we made sure the backdoor was much less obvious"

FTFY

By "the new normal", they mean giving the raw files to the person who's sick and say "here, fix the problem yourself. you can't afford to have us do it."

then I wake up with my pants around my ankles, feeling like something bad just happened....

He's mainly talking about end-to-end encrypted text/audio/video between individuals, where the service doesn't have the ability to decrypt it [supposedly like how Apple's FaceTime/iMessage work]. For SSL web pages, they are generally to a specific company which can be served with a warrant and the unencrypted content retrieved that way.

But he totally knows exactly what he's saying, because he'll have had experts tell him. The people he really has to worry about won't be affected by these laws. He MIGHT catch a couple of lone wack-jobs [people that basically self-radicalize and blurt out something stupid]. But anybody serious, like actual 'terrorist cells', in the sense that normal people would consider the term, will not be caught by this [well, they might in the sense that the security services will focus on who is using encrypted services that they can't readily decrypt, but they won't be decrypting the messages].

In Junior High [grades 7-9], by the second class, I knew more about programming the Apple II+ than the teacher did. It wasn't until end of highschool/university that the teachers caught up.

emails are already fair game, as they generally aren't encrypted [as in gmail has the plain text to hand over].

while they claim this is for terrorism, the only terrorists they could catch using this 'idea' are the very dumbest ones [shoe-bomber dumb].

but what they really want is for regular people to not casually use communication methods that they cannot read. they can't have this, and they know that require the big established players like facebook, google, apple, microsoft, yahoo to keep communications insecure, the vast majority of people will continue to use the services anyway, just through inertia.

Anyway, this whole "open letter" thing is ridiculous, because there are a whole bunch of people willing to do anything for lots of money.

1) banking sector
2) investment sector
3) military sector

There are already robot machine guns, programmed with a simple "fire at anything that moves" mechanism. Nobody building them will even flinch slightly at enabling them to move and throw in some 'AI' to control it. But I'll bet that the AI with not shooting at targets wearing specific tags [ie, good soldiers]. After that, it gets more vague as to whom will or will not be killed.

bytes! there are some crazy alien languages out there!

nice. of course, 3 out of 7 "underwater restaurants" are just last aquariums, and not actually underwater in the normal use of the word. If those count, then every hotel with an above-ground pool also can sell themselves as having an "underwater restaurant".