Even if you do that, you still reward people with bad intentions. In the scenario you describe, they only change their behaviour because they got caught. Rest assured that they will cheat again but more carefully or with different teachers. If that is how things work in our society, then we have collectively failed (and I believe we have). We can't base a society on "you will be caught and there will be consequences" because quite often people do not get caught. We fail at fostering good intentions, and no amount of surveillance will fix that.

An idea can be both technically correct and pointless at the same time. If we ever make contact with extra-terrestrial intelligent life, will you have a similar take? The exciting thing is not that it exists, but that it's observed by humans.

Things don't have to be as one-sided as you present them. It is clear that the people responsible for Trump winning the election are the people who voted for him. It is also clear that the DNC favoured Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.

Right, so if a crack dealer offers a free sample of their range of products to a kid, we shouldn't support the kid, just positively support them? What if some random asshole offers candy at the exit of the school, next to their van?

It can be both, they're not mutually exclusive. It's good to protect kids, it's bad to degrade privacy. Ideally we'll find a way to protect kids without degrading privacy, I won't hold my breath.

This sounds like a big security risk, maybe I am missing something ? What defense is there against a device that requests to run arbitrary code?

That comparison would work if you could listen to millions of songs then become capable of generating millions of songs on demand, within weeks or even months. The scale makes the difference. It's a bit like how you can buy a knife but not a nuke, even though in both cases you can use them to kill people. I think.

In fairness, YouTube's initial success is in part due to knowingly letting users illegally upload and share copyrighted content. They cannot be taken seriously in any claim they make here.

This comes to mind first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

We are all witnessing, with Iran, what happens when a country does not "want to help" the US. This is the mob making an example so that everyone else in the neighbourhood knows whose side they should be on. Remind me, why do the US need to have a military presence in that region of the world again?

In your idea, is the minimum wage a living wage? If yes, how do you define living wage and ensure that the minimum wage does indeed meet that standard over time? How does your idea work in countries without a minimum wage?

You are implying that "investors" make mostly good decisions. Citation needed.

You are replying to an AC troll who will find any small thing to discredit the whole, because somehow they have an agenda to discredit the EFF, which should be a big red flag to anyone here. Btw it's bullshit, the EFF has not defended that person as a person, they have only said that disclosing the AT&T vulnerability was valid and not irresponsible.

This distinction might only exist in your head. Apple as a company either rewards this behaviour or it doesn't. The company's actions is the sum of the actions taken by individuals while representing the company.

Just to be clear, in that context, Meta is the one trying to extend their authority over EU citizens, with manipulative patterns. Right-wing content has been mass-"suggested" by Meta, unsolicited, following Trump's election.