It's worst than that. Lobbyists actually write most bills, then find a congresscritter to sponsor the lobbyists' pet bills. Congresscritters very rarely write legislation themselves (I don't have it to hand but I recall seeing a stat that put their share at something like 5%.)
I lived on fixed wireless for most of the past decade. It was down at least 10% of the time, and often more (like every time it rained). It was unreliable enough that I kept the dialup modem as a backup.
If good upload speeds were widely available, I suspect online backup would quickly become a mainstream market, especially as more people become aware of the need to back up (witness the solid market for flash drives and external hard drives, mostly to ordinary folks and largely used for personal backups).
I know I'd use it, but my paltry 600k up will not cut it.
Trust me, Chuck Schumer knows exactly what he's doing. He never passes up an opportunity to restrict freedom.
These leaders that are supposed to be representing the peoples' will, seem to be so disconnected from what we the people want.
I think a larger problem is these asshats making this a lifetime career.
I know it stands a snowballs chance in hell, but we desperately need term limits to keep fresh blood more representative of the citizenry going through up there on a regular basis. These govt jobs were NOT meant to be lifetime careers.
Maybe more of a chance of governmental representatives thinking more of the rights of the people over the ever growing power of the govt to restrict the commoners' rights.
Ideally, you're going to want a couple of low-end laptops of a make and model known for reliability and able to run directly off wall current. You keep those backups for 20 years and you might find there's no OS or hardware that can handle your old media.
THEN I'd tend to store the data (and an image of the OS drive) on bootable USB flash-based storage. Just in case. You don't need the mechanical parts of the HDD failing after a long period in storage.
Until the fines are set to a level to remove all profit and THEN put a punishment on top, large business will continue to flout the law because it's more profitable.
You're absolutely right on the theory, but then take the next step to recognize that it's the purpose of government to ensure their profits and help them take money from us (in addition to the FCC taking money from us directly and giving it to the telco corporations).
This is evidenced by these fines never having been at a level such as you describe and, more recently, the move to no-plead agreements between prosecutors and corporations. You'll be shouting from your wheelchair in a retirement home that the government should increase fines on corporations to be proportional to their income, unless the fundamental bases of the system are changed.
Of course, if you do something wrong on the scale of millions of dollars of damage, you go to prison. If a corporation does something similarly wrong, they pay out some pocket change. Because "corporations are people, my friend."
The Founders had largely expected common sense to prevail. That it didn't is one reason why we have the Bill of Rights.
A small recreational drone could carry a deadly biological payload and even include a spray-dispersal of it.
It can also be used merely to scare people. Imagine if you were at a street festival and a drone sprayed a harmless slightly-oily or -sticky substance over everyone below. The local first responders would be tied up for hours until the substance was proven harmless.
Where in the Constitution it is not ok for them to do this? After all, you are on public roads, you still can go anywhere you want. I don't see where they are violating the Constitution here.
Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant YOU rights, those are natural. The Constitution is there to GRANT the federal govt very limited, enumerated rights. Basically it is supposed to be there to grant them rights and responsibilities, and anything NOT in the constitution is not something they are supposed to be able to do. This was the foundation for a limited, and minimally intrusive form of Federal Govt., which has been bastardized over the years, and many of us would prefer to have reigned in.
The govt is not supposed to be there to track me, nor put out a blanket dragnet of surveillance to try to find any wrongdoers out there. Especially at the Federal level. Possibly more able to at the state level, but at least on state and local level, you have a bit more recourse and influence over the local politicians than at a federal level.
Not to mention, if you don't like the rules of one state you are free to move to a more like minded state. If this is done federally and nationally, you lose that freedom.
But yes, the Constitution is there to grant very LIMITED and enumerated rights, roles and responsibilities for the federal govt. If it isn't in it the constitution, it should not be a power they have.
At least, that's the way and thought behind the construction and mandate of our govt. in the beginning.
I'd be happy to use an app that didn't track me so much, but to give voluntary info on police speed trap warnings, and traffic incidents, but I don't want them keeping my travel data and tracking me in real time.
This thing looks like a privacy nightmare from the TOS.
I"ve used an older app called "Trapster" which was a bit more anonymous and allowed folks to report speed traps and traffic cameras, etc. I think it fell a bit into dis-use which makes these kind of apps useful or not, but man, I don't like all the tracking and all that Waze does and the information it collects and seems to keep. Otherwise I'd jump on board big time.
Would be nice to know where speed traps and DWI roadblocks are set up when driving.
I prefer to avoid the police while out no matter what the cause.
I was boycotting them because of the cameras, but now it's like "oh well, either I stay locked in my house all day, invent a Harry Potter cloak for my car and hope I don't get hit because I'm invisible, or smile for the camera."
That middle option is looking mighty attractive right now.
Out of points or I would do it myself.
I'm guessing that the old thought of using high intensity infrarad LEDs to blow out the cameras doesn't work or we'd have heard more about it by now.
I don't know of laws requiring plates be readable by electronic means, otherwise they'd just have bar codes on them, no?
I'm just getting fed up with the govt. (state/feds) going overboard wight he surveillance. I mean, where in the constitution is it ok for them to do this to citizens that are NOT under investigation, nor being involved in interstate commerce?