That is only true if there is a light source behind the cover. Without a light source inside, some light will get through to the camera, but it won't get back out, giving the appearance of black plastic.
You could even make one that was polarized and get visible light through while maintaining the appearance of a black plastic cover.
Real freedom fighters need people to use Tor so they have some anonymity.
But then you have to synthesize the imperfections differently each time, if you go that far, there's little point in replacing an instrument musician with a digital one.
Except the answer is yes. Most music can be made with digital tools without significant loss. It can't, however, replace all of them. Digital music is good for technically perfect scripted performances. It falls short for live music and anything where the imperfections improve the music, primarily music heavily focused on emotions.
It is impossible for the US government to do anything that will result in fewer jobs. A single-payer system would either eliminate insurance companies or cost even more by adding another layer of bureaucracy between the people and the insurance companies.
I think "what" would be better, but then I always liked "Who's on First?"
It's not what they know about you, it's what whoever decides to hack their site with untested security knows about you.
Because Androids are smartphones, if you want a phone that's just a phone you don't buy a smartphone.
If that's what you're worried about wouldn't you want to give them more information so they'd have a better picture of you rather than less?
If the story is true, they wouldn't have started sabotage from the beginning so the first few batches off the line would most likely pass inspection. After the first ones passed, the inspection would most likely take place at the factory, where the inspectors may very well have been in on it.
They'd be renting a virtual room, much less expensive.
You can stand there all day at a pedestrian crossing and nobody will stop to let you cross.
In Oregon, that's how it is supposed to work. The people who stop for a pedestrian who isn't in a crosswalk are actually creating the hazard because others will not expect them to do that. Oregon says that a driver is required to stop only when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk with an intent to cross. You can stand on the sidewalk and look woefully at the drivers going by, but until you stick a toe out over the crosswalk they don't have to stop.
So they feel it's more hazardous for people to stop slowly to let a pedestrian cross than it is for people to slam on the breaks because the pedestrian has to enter the crosswalk to get them to stop?
Either pay for insurance as it drives or pay for the manufacturer's insurance up front when you buy the car, either way you're going to end up paying for it.
That last one might be a disadvantage for the street racing...