You will find very few people arguing against improved devices or superior efficiency. The problem arises when your "smart" devices start collecting and distributing information about you over the worlds largest information interchange network. Do you see how that could be objectionable to some people?
Code always has flaws, and those flaws are easy for bad guys to find. But if your computer has deliberately been designed with a blind spot, the bad guys will use it to evade detection by you and your antivirus software. That's why a 3-D printer with anti-gun-printing code isn't a 3-D printer that won't print guns—the bad guys will quickly find a way around that. It's a 3-D printer that is vulnerable to hacking by malware creeps who can use your printer's 'security' against you: from bricking your printer to screwing up your prints to introducing subtle structural flaws to simply hijacking the operating system and using it to stage attacks on your whole network."
When a company assures you your information is secure, look at what recompense you will receive as a result of them being wrong. That figure is a great indicator of how confident the company is in the security of your information.
Sure if its just janie talking to grandma, they can leave it all in the clear.
Wouldn't it be better if everything were encrypted, so stuff that's actually important / private doesn't stick out like a xmas tree lit in a forest?
I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.
My read on it is that the telcos don't want to have to comply with laws forcing them to cooperate, so they're just willing to do it in the first place. As a happy side effect, the voluntary implementation would be much less "noisy", saving the telcos from looking like they would happily sell out their customers.
From the Telco's POV, it's the closest to a win this situation has.
They're not interested in any kind of justice. They're only interested in revenge
And you are surprised?...
Can we consider for a moment the possibility that they've given up on the "justice" angle and are now left with "revenge"?
Regardless of everything else, a man under cover of authority has shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Again. Some would consider this a serious crime. Some would even think there should be repurcussions as a result of killing another person. Yesterday evening we learned there will be no criminal charges. How did we think this was going to turn out?
The NSA took the concerns seriously, and many senior officials shared them. But after an internal debate that has not been previously reported, NSA leaders, White House officials and key lawmakers opted to continue the collection and storage of American calling records, a domestic surveillance program without parallel in the agency's recent history.