Must be quite entertaining to watch you unlock your phone hundreds of times a day.

JFC...why in the world would you need to be accessing your phone "hundreds of times a day"???

Geez, there's a nice big world out there with REAL people in meatspace you can and should interact with...you know, make REAL friends with, maybe even get laid...??

Don't spend your whole day with your head stuck in your damned phone....

For most people, a fingerprint is a decent way to unlock their phone. It's fast and good enough for banks to trust it with payments. It can easily be disabled in an emergency situation (press the power button 5 times rapidly). Thieves aren't equipped to lift your print and unlock your device, and will just sell it on or break it down for parts.

For fingerprint unlock to be an issue you would have to consider a threat actor who can get your device before you have a chance to disable it, and then force you to unlock it before the biometrics time out and it defaults to needing your password (Pixel devices do that, not sure about others).

Well, with a police interaction, especially if they suspect you of something...you will be quickly separated from your phone and not be given a chance to click anything on it.

This is quite common....and even many cops have common sense to know this.

For what? Who I am is more relevant than what I know for the vast majority of transactions I have. Phones have functions to lock out biometrics, simply rebooting the phone would trigger a password requirement on every mobile I've used recently. I can't face unlock or thumb unlock a freshly started phone. On the iPhone you can simply press power + volume for 2 seconds and it will disable touch/face ID until the next time you enter your passcode.

Keep in mind, you likely will not HAVE the opportunity to click or hold anything on your phone with a cop interaction....quite often the first thing they'll do is separate you from your phone if they suspect you of something.

So, keep in mind, if you can't disable your biometrics....you're screwed.

Typing in a passcode/password is fast enough for any transactions I do with my phone...it isn't rocket surgery.

Why you should (if you own an iPhone) lock it with 5 clicks when doing things like going thru security lines or getting pulled over. Always. It requires the pin to enable touch or Face ID.

Why not just avoid using the biometric crap entirely?

I mean, I'm guessing the defendant, like many people would not have had a chance to click anything 5 times.

I've never used the biometrics, just a complex passcode/password.

We know that's protected the most to date.

This is why we need to pass a SIMPLE amendment:
We, the Citizens of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, shall have the right to amend the constitution directly, by having a simple majority of voters of three fourths of the states OR two thirds of voters in two thirds of the states, within a 10 year period of the first state passing the amendment.

A simple amendment like that would allow us to fix a large number of issues that CONgress will not do. Why will they not do it? Because they are controlled by 2 horribly corrupt parties that are controlled by rich ppl, businesses, and even foreign governments. We need to take back our government.

????
WTF does your second url have to do with ANY of this? 2 criminals were illegally stopped, but not due to any information from above.

Fusion centers? Are you talking about information moving from local LEOs up to the FBI and DNI??
Personally, I would prefer that information to go to DNI et. al, and not FBI, but that is for judges to decide. Even if the information flows downwards, I am good with that, AS LONG as it was legally obtained and is applicable to the situation. For example, NSA did NOT tap into to Trump's calls. OTOH, they DO tap various Russian calls, of which obviously a number of trump calls BEFORE he made president was done (this is why NSA objected to giving him, his family, and certain members of his admin access to intel, but esp. to Russian intel). If NSA had learned that Trump was getting marching orders from putin to sell fentanyl on the street, that should not be allowed to be sent down. Why not? Because this is not about terrorism/spying, it is about a criminal charge, which is where NSA is NOT concerned. However, I do not know if such information IS flowing downwards. I would hope not.

So, you do not think that NSA, DIA, etc should have the ability to know as much about Americans as China and Russia legally do?
Why is that? If you had paid attention to Snowden the ILLEGAL spying that was going on, was NOT from NSA iteself, but from individuals in there using gear that was only meant to go after terrorists, spies, etc. but instead using it on their own families/friends.

And there is a lot less sharing of information in the 5Is than you realize. To ask one of the others means that you generally have to show some sort of reason for it. Not a warrant, but certainly not the wild sharing that you seem to think is going on.

LLMs cannot do it. Hallucination is baked-in.

LLMs alone definitely can't do it. LLMs, however, seem (to me, speaking for myself as an ML developer) to be a very likely component in an actual AI. Which, to be clear, is why I use "ML" instead of "AI", as we don't have AI yet. It's going to take other brainlike mechanisms to supervise the hugely flawed knowledge assembly that LLMs generate before we even have a chance to get there. Again, IMO.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. No sign of that, though. :)

I'll be impressed when one of these ML engines is sophisticated enough to be able to say "I don't know" instead of just making up nonsense by stacking probabilistic sequences; also it needs to be able tell fake news from real news. Although there's an entire swath of humans who can't do that, so it'll be a while I guess. That whole "reality has a liberal bias" truism ought to be a prime training area.

While I certainly understand that the Internet and its various social media cesspools are the most readily available training ground(s), it sure leans into the "artificial stupid" thing.

Lots of good reasons NOT to be on social media....

It puzzles me why so many participate in that voluntary hoovering up of personal information....

As long as other nations can purchase this, then NSA, CIA and our general intelligence community should be able to access that without a warrant.
Now, as far requiring it for DoJ/FBI/local police/etc... GREAT.

It's their choice; they can either take a pay cut or start working at the office again. If the money means that much to them they'll come back to the office. Of course, that means that they'll be spending at least part of that money on their commute but probably not all of it. And, if they quit, that won't look good when they're interviewing for a next job along with the fact that since they quit, they aren't eligible for Unemployment.

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not saying that any companies are currently docking paychecks going to people who WFH and I'm not (exactly) saying that they should. I'm suggesting that CEOs are going to start seeing this as a way to get employees back to the office. And, although I didn't mention it before, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some people would be willing to have their pay docked if it meant that they didn't have to commute any more.

Personally I'm waiting for some creative CEO to start using that fact to get people back to the office. Consider what would happen if your wages were restructured so that a percentage was allocated as compensation for your commute. As long as you're in the office every day, nothing changes. Yes, you can WFM, but if you do, you don't get that part of your wages for that day. Legal? Probably. Popular with the staff? Hell no! Would it get people back in the office? Some of them, probably; how many is anybody's guess.

IRS agents go after wealthy tax cheats because they are scored and graded on how much money they recover and they're going to recover many many times more going after a wealthy tax sheet then they are going to go after some random Schwab who makes a little six figures or less.

I saw something on one of the news channels the other day, that seemed to indicate that the IRS indeed is going fairly heavily after the "Schwab" who makes 6 figures or less....

There's a ton of those, and they are easy pickings since they dont' have the resources for lawyers and heavy duty CPAs.....so, you can recover a LOT of $$ shaking down a LOT of small fish.

It's quicker too than going after a well lawyered up rich guy that can take years.