Many corporate, "non-Internet" email systems have had "message recall" and "do not forward" features, but these are there just to "keep honest people honest" - they are trivial to defeat.

Even the most sophisticated systems can't easily defeat the "analog hole" of photographing the screen with a film camera (yes, that can be done - movie theaters do it - but it's not really practical in a non-controlled environment).

Given how few use cases there are like the one you describe, there are probably a lot of important considerations that didn't make it into your question that make your use case unique.

This is one of those cases where you really need to sit down and decide what works best for your situation, NOT what works best for other situations that require this amount of data storage.

If I was a narcissist and had money to burn - which I don't - I might make a hobby of buying lots-of-paperwork-required guns just because I would be the only one on my block with such a collection.

For safety's sake - and to calm down the local police - I would put a gun-lock or some equivalent on them and I would take further steps so it would take hours rather than minutes to make the gun fire-able. I wouldn't keep more than a token amount of ammo on-site either.

To the extent that people make torture, snuff (murder), and animal- and child- or other-abuse movies for entertainment or financial (vs. war/propaganda) purposes and distribute those on the Internet, then the topic of this article is far, far from the "ugliest corner of the Internet."

People who enjoy others' pain and can't or won't follow the laws regarding torture and abuse need serious mental and/or spiritual help. Those who go out of their way to profit from this kind of thing likely need spiritual help as well, independent of any criminal penalties.

If this is a true direct takeover where no driver interaction is required, then it should be an "OH SH*T" moment for car-makers and will likely result in an "urgent/car is unsafe to drive" recall.

If it's a "social engineering" feat AND the car can be driven without the user touch-screen, then it will still result in a recall but customers will be warned to not use the touch-screen while driving (sorry customer, no radio for you until you come in for the repair).

Personally, I think it's great that this is being researched and publicized. Customers will start to demand that it be "impossible - enforced in hardware" for a car to be taken over in this manner.

... does it run [on] Linux?

Oh wait, I'm thinking of that other snake.

I don't get enough phone calls or texts for this to be an issue, but I get a ton of email.

When I'm at my PC, I have "alert me" turned on, because it's usually worth the bother.

But on my phone, I have everything on "manual." If someone emails me after business hours and I'm not expecting an email, I won't see it until the next day. If I am expecting it, I will either manually check it a few times that evening or I'll temporarily turn on "push."

By the way, I do know how to put my phone on "silent" and on the rare cases when I absolutely need to be free of interruption, I use that feature.

When I don't want to be tracked, there is "airplane mode/wifi off/bluetooth off", the "power off" feature, and, for some phones at least, battery removal. And if Donald Trump releases my phone number, there's always the industrial shredding machine/crusher.

You forget, it's not just the little guys being hurt by this. It's also Google, etc. It takes them time to go through these and they take the hit to their reputation if they always blindly process obviously-bogus requests without so much as looking at it.

Google has the money, the clout, and the legal talent to fight back even if the law seems to favor those making the bogus complaints. As Tepples said below, there is precedent.

Out of every million requests you are going to have some obvious mistakes. That's human nature. But it's a huge problem when companies just "throw a bunch of requests at the wall and see what sticks" without much cost to them for invalid requests.

Google and others who receive large volumes of requests should have some procedure to weed out those who send too many requests where the sender obviously didn't do his "due diligence" or worse, is trying to game the system.

Hopefully they can work out a voluntary system with the high-volume DMCA-takedown-notice requesters where the requester agrees in advance to pay "liquidated damages" (aka a "Google fine") for every rejected request and where they accept that they will be put into a "slow processing lane" if their rate of such requests gets too high.

If Google etc. can't come to a voluntary agreement with a particular high-volume sender and that sender's rate of invalid requests gets too high, Google, etc. should take the requester to court to get an order prohibiting the requester from sending any future request without an affidavit declaring that they have done "due diligence." If they don't sign the oath, it won't be a valid request. If they do sign it and didn't do the due diligence, they will be found in contempt of court and face criminal perjury charges.

Yes, I did miss the joke.

That begs the question though, is it considered an obscenity when you key down with your middle, er, digit? :P .

... for a reason.

I Google'd "bruce perens site:fcc.gov" and this came up as the first hit.