I don't think fixing cars or cell phones is going to get to the root of the problem. The root is that people think they can do more than one thing at a time and not trip over their own damn feet. Since changing the culture seems out of the question, no amount of technological fixes is going to save us from trying to do more than we're cognitively equipped to do.
In so doing, he created decades of thumb-twiddling inaction by the US government, leading to the problem becoming much more severe and intractable than it might otherwise have been.
But, yes, technically "climate change" more accurately describes what's happening, though "climate disruption" or something similar would probably be a better choice.
SEE?? This just proves that government bureaucrats can't do anything!!!1 If they'd just gotten those stupid regulators to get their boots of the throats of the job-creators, the guiding hand of free-market capitalism would have fixed this by now! This is why we need to cut capital-gains taxes and destroy the EPA!!!1
THANKS OBAMA WHERZ TEH BIRF CERTIFICATE BENGHRZGGG etc
So, for example, should one of their sockpuppets be reading their press material at a conference, it would sound like this: "In addition to the revolutionary remote replacement, HAL *COPYRIGHTED!!* is also introducing wearable technologies such as their HAL *COPYRIGHTED!!* Watch HAL *COPYRIGHTED!!* Ring, and HAL *COPYRIGHTED!! Glasses, etc etc" like a bad case of Tourette's Syndrome.
"surveillance must be guided by standards and by high-level policymakers"
So, if I'm reading this summary correctly, the only real problem is that our chickenshit congress never tripped over its own feet in a rush to hand the executive branch these exact powers in some most-assuredly extra-patriotic piece of legislation? All the issues with this law will go away if it gets a stamp of approval?
On a second note, why is it that nobody seems to mind (or make laws against) treating the inhabitants of other countries to police-state surveillance, including the heads of sovereign states?
Yes, it's sad, and I would like to see them mitigated. But it's the same idiocy that makes people compare three high-speed collisions in Tesla Model S fires to the tens of thousands of fires that happen every year in ICEs with nary a peep.
I wasn't actually stating an opionion on whether people trading pictures online was in itself a bad thing-- in fact, I suspect the other commentor up above is probably right, that "won't anybody think of the children??!!" is a bullshit argument that probably does more harm than good.
But any service that explicitly advertises itself as beyond the reach of surveillance will be, I suspect, very quickly populated with people circulating things that are, for better or worse, illegal.
An unintended consequence of trying to avoid the NSA and Facebook's marketing bullshit quickly gets known as a haven for perverts, rather than the actual good it might do (and yes,, it may very well -- though I don't know nearly enough to have an opinion on the matter -- thus provide a safe outlet for people who might otherwise act out on their urges in more harmful ways).
Just look at Tor: what started out as a means for dissidents to escape surveillance is now known to most laypeople as "that place where drug dealers meet with money launderers and identity thieves and hackers to trade with impunity."
I'm guessing about six months..
If you really don't understand just how easy it is to compel innocent people to incriminate themselves with the right kinds of pressure -- physical, emotional, psychological -- then you really don't know anything about how the justice system can be abused, and definitely have no business writing opinion pieces whining about how unfair it is that good people aren't coddled like all those undeserving criminals.