Absolutely not. Who is sponsoring and voting on these bills? It is not the FBI. Public enemy number one is politicians that want simple solutions to complicated problems. You could also argue that public enemy number one is the public. As voters we either re-elect incompetent incumbents or 'throw the bum out' and then replace them with someone far worse.
Ending the stranglehold that the two major parties hold on the election process might be worth trying too.
Just like the average soldier wasn't the problem during the Vietnam war, the average FBI agent is not the problem today.
I hope the court realizes that the State officials are incompetent retards who created a serious security situation.
Of course they may have just purchased or licensed a serious security situation. There are a lot of poorly written applications created by the private sector and sold to the public sector.
There should be no excuse for a State though. They should have the resources to check out software and services they purchase (especially elections related software or services). When it comes to the County and City level though, many don't have the resources to do this kind of evaluation whether it is available skill sets or money to pay an expert. This is a significant problem that really needs addressing in many localities.
Florida really should drop this one. All they are doing is making themselves look worse (hey!, why just look stupid when you can also look corrupt).
Amen a thousand times over. This is the thing people are incapable of understanding. Places like Wilson, NC started their own broadband services because the commercial providers refused to work with them to improve their broadband. What they had was expensive and insufficient. How do you attract businesses to an area that does not offer a decent broadband service? Nothing changed until they decided to just implement their own. Of course, then the lobbyists convinced legislators to prevent others in the state from doing the same. Wilson is grandfathered.
It is not state governments job to prevent citizens from being served by own their local government when there is no commercial interest in providing a broadband solution. This ban on local broadband is simply ridiculous.
I think the quote went something like this:
"I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The proposed legislation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way competent, and was motivated purely by ignorance, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and any other citizen and I hereby undertake not to submit any such nonsense at any time in the future."
1. I drive 40 minutes to work every morning and up to an hour and a half driving home in the evening. I would love to hand this boring and wasteful task to my car. I could certainly do something much better with the time.
2. This technology will certainly become commonplace (look at aerospace, for example). It is going to take research to figure out how best to do this. It is going to require adjustments to how transportation is regulated. It may require changes to our infrastructure. You certainly don't to put these vehicles on the road without some thought to the implications of doing so. This costs money. What is the alternative?
3. The part that does concern me is what will happen when autonomous commercial vehicles become common. Talk about a job killer. How many hours each year do long haul trucks sit idle because the driver is required by law to stop to rest? That issue would completely disappear (along with a whole lot of decent jobs). Of course, this also could eliminate those accidents caused by drivers falling asleep.
As in almost all change, there are good points and bad points. There is also cost.
Who would care if the US spent 4 billion dollars on research, regulatory updates and infrastructure updates if the benefits far outweigh the cost? Unfortunately, sometimes you have to spend money just to find out if spending more is warranted. Consider the trillions we've spent recently that had almost no prospect of providing any benefit to the average American citizen. I'd much rather see spending on something like this.
I am actually very healthy. So if unhealthy people are harmed by disclosure, then logically, I should benefit if mine are disclosed. I should get better job offers, and women will want to date me. So how do I ensure that my medical records are among the 1/3 that are compromised?
People's heath situation does change.
From further above:
And prospective employers might decide you're too sick to invest in
This is what I fear. One of the more important factors in hiring will be impact on the company's health insurance plan. The organization I work for is self insured. I know that they know who in the organization is significantly impacting health care costs (maybe not specific individuals, but in general certainly). Wouldn't it be great to keep the high risks out? You might be perfectly healthy. You would never know that you were not hired because your family had a history of cancer.
Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.
It is also make it difficult to buy a vote. The buyer can't verify that the seller actually voted for their candidate.
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson