What the gov't is going for now is killing automatic end-to-end encryption. Like Apple's iMessage, where [supposedly] the message in encrypted at each end so that only the destination devices can decrypt it, and not Apple. They want Apple to redesign the setup so that instead, when the iMessage arrives at Apple's server, it is/can be decrypted by Apple, and then re-encrypted [optional!] before being sent on to the destination device. This way, the gov't can force Apple to give up the messages [presumably with a court order].
Repeat with every other data transfer protocol by everyone, including BlackBerry.
Yeah. Unfortunately, it's New Coke. Not the good stuff made with cocaine.
Someone should write a song about it.
And then there is the opposite problem. This could make an excellent entry vector to Amazon's cloud service that may not be as protected as 'normal' uploading via the Internet.
The problem IS mobile web. They actually try to cram more tracking JS crap on pages, with auto-playing video [at least they still generally serve flash to desktop, so blocking Flash works to kill those ads]. It's ridiculous.
Yes, this is just trying to serve the existing ads and tracking crap faster.
Ad/Tracking Blocking really is the only way forward.
I'm pretty sure most of these 'economic research' papers were used by industry to indicate to the government that the economy will do much better if the government gives them a bunch of money.
And both feet must simultaneously be in contact with the ground during each stride when switching from one foot to the other. Otherwise, you also go directly to jail.
What the hell is THAT doing in there!
I got pregnant accidentally.
1) this discussion is not about "banning" anything. And nothing in my comment even hints at banning anything.
2) my comment is that, for the people who get distracted playing with their in-car entertainment/guidance system, and then hit/kill someone, which has repeatedly happened in the past, this makes lawyers eye's light up. And if they can establish that whatever company that created that system didn't do a good job in managing the risk of this distraction happening, it gives the lawyer a boner and/or sploosh moment. And this specifically is the core of your vaunted "free-market", where when you do something stupid, you pay for it.
3) companies that make these in-car entertainment/guidance systems generally employ both a bunch of reasonably smart people and reasonably smart lawyers. And they generally will come to the decision that it is much better for their bottom line and the public perception of their company if they design their systems so that they don't get sued for enabling the driver to distract themselves while driving. enlighted self-interest.
4) feel free to mount a laptop as your in-car entertainment system, and then listen to music on it, or watch the latest Miley Cyrus video, or whatever. You clearly seem to be one of those "special" people who can handle it.
There are silver bullets. They just don't kill vampires.
Well, the person you hit while scrolling through that list of songs might differ on that point. And their lawyer will be very interested it as well.
Nope. Same type as before. pond.
My computer can beat up your computer. - Karl Lehenbauer