While I am reasonably tech savvy, I do not understand how an operating system can be so (at least seemingly) poorly designed, that it allows this type of attack at all.

The Pegasus attack, memory serving, simply sends a text message that does not even need to be opened.

If this is horrible OS software development on Apple's end, then it is fascinating to witness people shelling out a lot of money for a terribly insecure device (that likely includes conducting financial transactions).

Is there an equivalent 'no interaction' hack against Android devices?

Am I missing here?

Good point.

If, however, such tagging is so commonplace (which one could sensibly assume that it will be) that the burglar always runs into them, then moving onto the next target does not sensibly happen.

Moreover, finding and removing such a tag is likely fairly trivial. The burglar could ascertain the bluetooth signal prior to stealing the item, could take the item to an alley (or such), have some time to find and remove the tag (likely seconds), and leave from there.

Lojack does not deter persistent and smart thieves (https://www.quora.com/How-do-car-thieves-detect-and-disable-lo-jacks-on-cars).

Thieves apparently just need a bluetooth signal detector, remove the source of that signal (e.g. Apple Tag), then steal the item.

"Problem solved".

Yeah! It's Einstein come back to life!

"Goodbye and Good Riddance To the 16:9 Aspect Ratio"

"That doesn't mean there are no 16:9 displays left and plenty of laptops still use it, and probably will for the foreseeable future."

Memory and intelligence serving...

DJs can play any music at clubs, apparently because the clubs secure the necessary license (which is like the license that radio stations need).

Mixcloud is similar.

The only limit (at least at Mixcloud) is no more than two songs from the same artist can be played within a single DJ session.

Mixcloud (like radio stations) requires filling out a playlist form, but I do not know about DJs at clubs (although it would not surprise me, if a playlist must be formally submitted there too).

Twitch apparently needs a similar license and playlist form, if feasible.

I do not mind paying a reasonable fee to support that license as a streamer, if I want to play licensed music (obviously streamers who do not play such music would not be charged that fee).

Moreover, there needs to be legal accountability for wrongful take downs, as they cause an unjust and costly burden.

Especially as a soon-to-be-streaming artist who fears constantly (if not continuously) having copyright strikes for using my own copyrighted music, I would like to see (at least something like) a white list feature that all take down bots would check prior to take down.

The aforementioned accountability and corresponding punishment probably facilitates the fairly prompt implementation of that key feature.

Anti-privacy (like the rest of us) is dust in the wind.

On a similar note, how's that needed human behavior improvement coming along lul?

When you horribly cheaply demonize "the artists" (instead of those relevant artists) in response to this obviously narrow takedown attack perpetrated by mainstream record labels, I feel perfectly confident in denouncing your statement to a fair degree.

As an artist, I prefer that my art breathe freely. I do not leverage any takedown (unless obvious abuse is occurring), because that outcome is unhealthy for art and our community.

Copyright abuse is obviously unacceptable, but copyright (as flawed as it is, like any other complex system) represents the only leverage that a professional artist has against the egregious theft of our income.

It is not the fault of caring artists that the vast majority of people enjoy (actually fall for) music intentionally processed by mainstream record labels via cheap marketing psychology, while those caring artists who do not sell out (and are happy to have their art freely shared) remain largely ignored.

Instead of "fuck the artists", how about everyone (obviously including streamers) be more responsibly selective about the art that they support, and work together with the right artists to fight back against copyright abuse simply via smart consumer demand.

I know that way too many people believe that professional artistry is a joke, and all music (etc.) should be free (despite the enormous amount of work that goes into it), but art/entertainment beyond cheap money-making crap provides educational nutrients that inspire technology among other key societal improvements, so provides a legit contribution to society worthy of (inclusively financially) supporting.

I do not know what hurts me more. Is it that you recklessly say "fuck the artists"? Or is it that you have been maximally upvoted for doing so?

Shame on any of you for upholding that cheap demonization.

Cheap demonization (including racism) is a severe problem terribly plaguing our species, and is (at least arguably) the primary leverage exercised by power addicts to manipulate the "sheeple" into enabling the power addicts.

When will enough people finally break free from that heinous manipulation to understand and maturely oppose that vicious circle that continuously endangers society?

It would not surprise me, if caring artists powerfully contribute to ending that horrific circle.

"We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas"... and process them (including censor them) through our Facebook algorithm for selfish reasons.

No thank you, Zucker.

There is no doubt that internet data is required for fair market competition throughout our economy.

Given that the legitimate public concern is over private sector dominance against the public good, unfair data discrimination should be treated as an antitrust violation.

Antitrust laws were put in place to stop monopolies and such, so it makes sense.

Net neutrality law is on path to fall, but antitrust law likely will not.

"Rather than putting such a core tenet of the internet in the hands of politicians, whose whims and interests change with their donors"

"There has never been a better time to... build political support for new, local-government owned networks."

See? The solution isn't politics. It's politics.

Understanding that the leaders of our society form an oligarchy seamlessly spanning the private and public sectors, let us rephrase that.

The solution isn't empowering our oligarchy.

The solution is empowering our oligarchy.

See the difference?

Me neither.

There apparently is no way around the greedy oligarchical gatekeeper(s) and their conflict of interest against positive societal health.

But defeatism is never the right choice.

"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."

But we do not leave our doors unlocked, nor instead give the police (or basically anyone else who does not reside there) a key to use when they deem fit (abusively or not).

Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.

"...does not mean that they expect their intimate data to be monitored by the government without a warrant"

No, those tech companies just want marketing companies to monitor our intimate data "for limited purposes" (and pay the tech companies handsomely to do that).

Security? Meh.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, if unclear.

After watching the Alexa ads, I wonder what happens when someone named Alexa (e.g. someone's wife) lives in the area of its use.

Alexa confusion is not a joke (but it attempts to be).

At least that (at least likely) won't happen with Google.

Overall, I still agree with everyone citing the obvious problem in allowing microphones permanently on within a private context generally known as home.

Devices with microphones and cameras that I'm unable to truly validate that I can turn them off have no home with me.

Of course, eventually all devices will have them (because the public at large simply refuses to care about the aforementioned serious risk), so that will make my decision a much more painful one.

Wheee!!! I love the future!