Back in the 20s and 30s in the US, the mob ran roughshod over the land. The only way devised to corral them-- because of massive corruption on local, state, and federal levels-- was to invoke tax laws. It worked. It got Capone, and a bunch of the mob.
What really ended that era of gangsterism? Prohibition was repealed. We didn't see the return of that type of gangsterism until the war on drugs.
The war on drugs doesn't stop or restrict drug use it creates wealthy powerful gangsters.
This type of privacy violating law needs to go. If you are suspected of a crime the cops should need to get a warrant to have the banks show them your transactions. Monitoring your finances without a warrant is not fundamentally different than tapping your phone or planting a GPS on your car without one.
I've already encountered address errors where due to the GPS having erroneous data the driver was unwilling to accept he was not at the right place. How do you handle a robot that KNOWS it is droppng its load on you and it is wrong? A human can have the sign on the bulding and the street sign pointed out to them to prove they are wrong. How do you reason with the software?
How many loads redirected by hackers before they need men to "ride shotgun" on the load?
You would submit a problem ticket. If enough people submit them, it becomes a priority for a paid developer to address the issue.
It becomes a priority to fix for the next paid for release. For a patch to the current release? Only if they must.
Indeed - the page actually mentions the rhythm method, the Catholic's favoured method.
Someone please help me understand. How is the rhythm method not a form of contraception and as such just as much a sin as any other method of contraception?
Because they have faith that it isn't. Facts don't matter when you have faith.
A search is not unreasonable if it yields evidence of a crime. This case, if any, is a shining beacon for why we need ubiquitous surveillance, including private property. If it saves just one life, it's worth the effort.
A search is not unreasonable if there are FACTS known that make it PROBABLE that it will yield evidence of a crime AND that judgement is made by a judge not by the one advocating the search.
Read 1984 by Orwell for a view of where "ubiquitous surveillance" leads. Note that novel is not a "How to manual" though it seems politicians disagree.