The airlines could make money auctioning off short periods of time in the booth for passengers on flights with screaming babies or young kids who are getting antsy and bored. "How much for 15 minutes away from the babies in the third row? Bidding starts at $50."
By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone,' he told attendees.
Well, until they show up with an NSL, in which case we'll supply the data forthwith. But don't worry, we'll still have to maintain we really don't.
Or when (not if) someone hacks the database in which we've stored that information, or when one of our staff members becomes obsessed with someone who drives a Ford, or some staffer gets careless about disposing of the media on which the data is stored, or
One approach that is not very secure but is cheap and fast (so if you're going in for emergency surgery and only have a couple minutes to prepare) is to send a letter to yourself just before the operation. Print out your passwords, stick them between two sheets of cardboard or other sheets of paper on which you've scribbled random lines (to prevent someone from holding the letter up to the light to read the message) and send it to yourself. Add a sticker (or a painted strip of nail polish of which you've taken a picture) across the flap as a little added intrusion detection.
This avoids the problem that some people have identified with other solutions, namely remembering what you did with the passwords. ["I got a letter, I guess I should open it since that's what you do with letters."] It also makes it a federal offense (mail tampering) for others to open your mail, and it is a little bit of "security through obscurity" because that letter will look like any other letter you receive. [Security through obscurity shouldn't be your ONLY means of security, but if you have to use that approach the obscurity is a bonus.] Sure, it's not going to safeguard your passwords from the government
I didn't decorate my dwelling at all because I knew I would be elsewhere for the holidays.
It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.
The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.
This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).
Suing the Government and/or T3 could be problematic based on the example you cited. But there's another option: ignore the license agreement and continue distributing the material. They can try to DMCA you, and you can file a counter-notice. If they then file another counter-notice, wouldn't that give you standing to sue for a declaration that you have a right to distribute the material? If they sue you, well, you get to make your claim in court.
But what if the government promised to keep the data as secure as its diplomatic communiques? Those things must have multiple levels of security attached to them, making them impossible to compromise! Surely that would satisfy privacy-conscious individuals like yourself, right? Bueller?
At the start of my Thanksgiving bus ride, the driver announced that passengers could use their cell phones but asked that users be courteous to other passengers and keep the calls quiet and short. It seemed to work -- the bus ride was fairly quiet, as quiet as a bus full of (I would guess) 50-60 people can be. [Coughing, rustling of papers, quiet conversation with passengers seated next to one another, etc.]
...such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
Preferably while in mid-air.
But all life is sacred, right ???
Now disembarking their CELL PHONE in mid-air would require a much smaller airlock to prevent the cabin from depressurizing, and would ensure that a first offense (on a particular flight by a particular passenger) likely would be the LAST offense on that flight by that passenger. [If we made it that ALL that passenger's phones were disembarked, it WOULD be the last offense.]
On a more serious note, we don't need this type of law. All we need is for airlines to have a clearly stated policy, something like "You can talk on your phone, but keep it quiet and short. If other passengers complain, you will be asked to lower your voice or end your call. If you refuse, your phone will be confiscated and returned to you at the end of the flight. Passengers who resist the confiscation will be treated using our existing 'unruly passengers' policies, and as such may be banned from the airline or even may be arrested when we land."
So
6. What impact would this have on Google's self-driving cars?
Maybe. If it was possible, whether that would be seen as a violation of the Outer Space Treaty or not is a different question.
I'd be more worried about someone using one of these on a highway on cars traveling at high rates of speed. If the transmitter were stationary a vehicle may not be in range for long enough, but if you had one mounted to the rear of your vehicle facing backwards (and shielded somehow from affecting YOUR vehicle) it could cause horrible accidents as cars behind the one that was shut down plowed into it. In Massachusetts this weekend we had a 65-vehicle accident caused by black ice on the road -- this could be worse.
I'm not a lawyer, but reading 17 USC 512 it doesn't look like there's anything requiring service to accept DMCA takedown notices electronically. Section c, subsection 2 requires companies to make their designated agent's email address available, but specifically does NOT say that they must accept notices at that email address. If companies declared that they required physical takedown notices (due, of course, to the ease with which spammers have flooded that public address with spam and fraudulent takedown notices!) it would be much more expensive for companies like Warner Bros. to (ab)use the DMCA like a shotgun.
How about a hair dryer on a motion sensor to scare the cat away with noise and hot air? Or a shop vac with the hose set into the exhaust port?
Kitty might not make it to the potted plant before it defecates.
In Virginia, you're "driving" if the keys are in the ignition, even if the engine is off.
So if you're responsibly sleeping off your buzz before heading home, DO NOT turn on the radio or you'll get a DUI.
If you want to listen to the radio while falling asleep or passing out, sleep it off in the passenger seat.
Seems to me that being certified to practice medicine by the medical organization of which you are president is a bit shaky. Of course, I doubt he'll use his medical degree again now that he's drunk the waters of political power so it's really a moot point.
I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato
