The problem is to get them declared unconstitutional, most likely by the SCOTUS, you have to get the case about the non-disclosure orders to court. So far, almost all of them have been thrown out due to lack of ability to prove standing, ie: since you can't prove that one of these orders were applied to you, as they're secret, you can't test your case in court. That is most likely why they do not terminate the non-disclosure when an actual case is brought against you is so the NSL itself cannot be contested. The few cases I have heard of that someone managed to get around this problem, the government quickly drops the case.
The difference, from a legal perspective is a password is knowledge in your mind that you would be forced to give testimony to provide it to unlock a drive and could be protected under the 5th amendment over self-incrimination whereas encryption keys work like regular keys in the fact they are not knowledge you possess but, a virtual item that you can pass to law enforcement without saying a word just like handing over a key to a safe so, no 5th amendment option. Of course what they feds are trying to do is create a 5th amendment loophole by not requiring him to tell them the password but, instead that he can type it in himself so that there will be no testimony provided. It's a sneaky attempt to do a end-run around the bill of rights and I hope the SCOTUS doesn't go for it.
Between the failure of Windows Mobile and now XBox winding down combined with falling PC sales, Microsoft has got to be feeling the heat from investors when asked, "where's the growth in 10 years." Right now their revenues are fine but, with no future money making divisions, they risk stagnation which investors see as death.
Actually, there's case law in the opposite position as well that says you cannot be forced to give over a password under the 5th Amendment; physical encryption keys is another matter. Eventually, this will need to be ruled on by the SCOTUS. He's going to have to wait until his case gets cleared by a judge.
Sorry but, as much as we may loathe someone, everyone is equally protected under the Constitution. If you don't like it, move to a country without fundamental rights and see how you like it. I hear North Korea is a good choice if you don't care about rights.
Actually, auto insurance does cover you if you're the pedestrian in a vehicle on person accident, just has homeowner's or renter's insurance covers the items in your car in case of accident or theft. I can't explain the logic, but, that's the way they do it. For the pedestrian that does not have insurance that would cover them would be one of those edge cases that would need to be answered. I think most countries that have full no-fault insurance, the government picks up the tab if no other insurance is available.
And compared to the problems with Javascript on their mobile version, especially involving comment moderation, their time can be much better spent than implementing Unicode support.
Eventually, robots (and computer driven cars are robots) will put everyone out of a job. We need to start working on an economy that is not based off the value of human labor as in 50-200 years, the value of human labor will be less than 0.
Was asking Can they have the cars drop down to manual mode on there own just before an accident so they get out of having any liability?
Since no-fault insurance doesn't have liability (and this is what the Nevada and California starting frameworks are going towards), there would be no reason to. The car manufacturer would not be liable unless there was proof that they took shortcuts on safety so suddenly making the driver responsible opens them up to more liability than they already have as that would cause an investigation into "shortcuts" on their part. Claims would be paid based on the injured party's insurance unless there was suspicion of intent to cause harm.
Can they force to have dealer only service under the way of the system will only work in limp mode or not at all if the drm system sees non dealer work has been done?
I see, you're talking about using our stupid copyright laws to backdoor forcing dealer-only service. They've been trying this already. Self-driving cars have nothing to do with this question. It's taking a while but, the legal wind has not been blowing in the auto-makers' favor due to laws against requiring dealer-only service.
Willing to pay up in cases of death / injury right away of have the victims left holding the bag with bills racking up as they take a very time of work it though the court system or try to stick it on some sub contractor who does not have the funds to pay out?
In a no-fault insurance setup, your insurance pays the bills, not the "other guy." So, if your insurance provider is not paying the bills, one, you can sue them and two, you should get a better insurance provider.
This happens all the time with new technologies. Cab drivers and truck drivers will join the ranks of buggy-whip manufacturers one day. Same shit, different day.
Assuming that the auto-drive was on and there was no tampering of the system then, it should be payed out the same way as no-fault insurance (a model we should have moved to decades ago).
Who will do the jail / prison time for criminal cases of car accidents?
Again, assuming auto-drive and no tampering, there shouldn't be criminal cases. It was an accident! Exception: If shortcuts were made by the self-driving car software; such as the VW emissions-tempering case.
Willing to be open to FAA like code audits / tests?
I would certainly advocate to force this. How about you?
What about tickets both ones that go to the car (owner) and ones that go to the driver?
There should be few if any traffic tickets while in auto-drive mode as the code is supposed to be designed to follow the law (see above line item). Some police departments are actually terrified of this fact as they will no longer be able to use traffic tickets to help fund their departments.
DUI issues can you get a DUI just for being in a auto drive car in auto mode?
Probably early on as the auto-drive systems cannot be fully relied upon for safety but, this will fade in time as systems become more reliable.
Can have a drop out to manual mode just before an accident to get out of having any liability?
These systems, thus far, keep a log so the police would find out you did this and you can be cited/charged accordingly.
Can they force to have dealer only service?
There are already quite a few laws on the books saying that this is illegal. I don't see that changing.
Can they force updates on you and make you pay data overeager and roaming fees? Where an 1-2GB update can cost as much as a new car?
This is probably the messiest issue you've brought up. FCC rules on wireless and wireless charges are crap to non-existent. If I were you, this is what I'd really watch for.
There are some things that we do that we just don't care. The convenience is more important than other factors such as privacy and free software principles. I can give a personal example: I run paper and dice roleplaying games that I sync character sheets, images and other data to my players. I don't give a rat's ass who can scan them or if some service decides to go out of existence suddenly. None of the data is vital or in need of data security. If they disappear overnight, it's annoying but, I can just upload it on another service as I have backups. And if they really need to know the level of the paladin in my party... whatever.
Having worked in a couple of school districts, I can tell you that a lot of administrators are former high school bullies that grew up to be gym teachers and right on into administration. The behavior of sparing no time or expense tracking down and punishing students that made fun of them on the internet fits the profile of a grown-up bully perfectly.
You're assuming that the goals of the policy-makers in Florida is to provide an quality education to children. If the goal is to syphon off as much public money from them to line their own pockets, then the good money is prepping them for prison so they can continue it right into adulthood. If that is their goal, then everything is working perfectly. Raise them with a crappy education so that crime is a more enticing option, spy on them the whole time and report every action to the police so that they can arrest them and send them off to prison when the time is right for maximum profit.
If the camera light has come on then it is time to accuse the district of kiddie porn. With the current environment, the burden of proof will be on them and with, at least, one district having already been nailed on this issue, it will likely lead to policy changes. The camera on the device, in this context, is supposed to be used only to locate the device if it is reported stolen. If they are capturing pictures of someone under the age of 18 using the device, then there can only be one purpose, at least as far as the public is concerned.
When will people learn that pre orders are complete garbage and stop falling for them? Companies have shown time and time again that they are willing to screw over pre order customers for either other money, promotion or convenience and that doesn't even include when the delivered product is garbage and you can't back out of the sale.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is to get them declared unconstitutional, most likely by the SCOTUS, you have to get the case about the non-disclosure orders to court. So far, almost all of them have been thrown out due to lack of ability to prove standing, ie: since you can't prove that one of these orders were applied to you, as they're secret, you can't test your case in court. That is most likely why they do not terminate the non-disclosure when an actual case is brought against you is so the NSL itself cannot be contested. The few cases I have heard of that someone managed to get around this problem, the government quickly drops the case.
Or about Clinton...
God forbid someone's Windows 95 application stops working suddenly 20 years later!
My statement was in general, not just about this specific case.
It's just an attempt to do a dirty end-run around the 5th amendment and law enforcement should be smacked for it.
The difference, from a legal perspective is a password is knowledge in your mind that you would be forced to give testimony to provide it to unlock a drive and could be protected under the 5th amendment over self-incrimination whereas encryption keys work like regular keys in the fact they are not knowledge you possess but, a virtual item that you can pass to law enforcement without saying a word just like handing over a key to a safe so, no 5th amendment option. Of course what they feds are trying to do is create a 5th amendment loophole by not requiring him to tell them the password but, instead that he can type it in himself so that there will be no testimony provided. It's a sneaky attempt to do a end-run around the bill of rights and I hope the SCOTUS doesn't go for it.
Between the failure of Windows Mobile and now XBox winding down combined with falling PC sales, Microsoft has got to be feeling the heat from investors when asked, "where's the growth in 10 years." Right now their revenues are fine but, with no future money making divisions, they risk stagnation which investors see as death.
Actually, there's case law in the opposite position as well that says you cannot be forced to give over a password under the 5th Amendment; physical encryption keys is another matter. Eventually, this will need to be ruled on by the SCOTUS. He's going to have to wait until his case gets cleared by a judge.
Sorry but, as much as we may loathe someone, everyone is equally protected under the Constitution. If you don't like it, move to a country without fundamental rights and see how you like it. I hear North Korea is a good choice if you don't care about rights.
Actually, auto insurance does cover you if you're the pedestrian in a vehicle on person accident, just has homeowner's or renter's insurance covers the items in your car in case of accident or theft. I can't explain the logic, but, that's the way they do it. For the pedestrian that does not have insurance that would cover them would be one of those edge cases that would need to be answered. I think most countries that have full no-fault insurance, the government picks up the tab if no other insurance is available.
It's technically supposed to be chocolate ice cream but, no one actually uses it for that.
I prefer Elvish to Latin.
Talk about human society going full circle. Though there are not nearly enough penis emojis to meet hieroglyphic standards yet.
And compared to the problems with Javascript on their mobile version, especially involving comment moderation, their time can be much better spent than implementing Unicode support.
Eventually, robots (and computer driven cars are robots) will put everyone out of a job. We need to start working on an economy that is not based off the value of human labor as in 50-200 years, the value of human labor will be less than 0.
Was asking Can they have the cars drop down to manual mode on there own just before an accident so they get out of having any liability?
Since no-fault insurance doesn't have liability (and this is what the Nevada and California starting frameworks are going towards), there would be no reason to. The car manufacturer would not be liable unless there was proof that they took shortcuts on safety so suddenly making the driver responsible opens them up to more liability than they already have as that would cause an investigation into "shortcuts" on their part. Claims would be paid based on the injured party's insurance unless there was suspicion of intent to cause harm.
Can they force to have dealer only service under the way of the system will only work in limp mode or not at all if the drm system sees non dealer work has been done?
I see, you're talking about using our stupid copyright laws to backdoor forcing dealer-only service. They've been trying this already. Self-driving cars have nothing to do with this question. It's taking a while but, the legal wind has not been blowing in the auto-makers' favor due to laws against requiring dealer-only service.
Willing to pay up in cases of death / injury right away of have the victims left holding the bag with bills racking up as they take a very time of work it though the court system or try to stick it on some sub contractor who does not have the funds to pay out?
In a no-fault insurance setup, your insurance pays the bills, not the "other guy." So, if your insurance provider is not paying the bills, one, you can sue them and two, you should get a better insurance provider.
This happens all the time with new technologies. Cab drivers and truck drivers will join the ranks of buggy-whip manufacturers one day. Same shit, different day.
Willing to pay up in cases of death / injury?
Assuming that the auto-drive was on and there was no tampering of the system then, it should be payed out the same way as no-fault insurance (a model we should have moved to decades ago).
Who will do the jail / prison time for criminal cases of car accidents?
Again, assuming auto-drive and no tampering, there shouldn't be criminal cases. It was an accident! Exception: If shortcuts were made by the self-driving car software; such as the VW emissions-tempering case.
Willing to be open to FAA like code audits / tests?
I would certainly advocate to force this. How about you?
What about tickets both ones that go to the car (owner) and ones that go to the driver?
There should be few if any traffic tickets while in auto-drive mode as the code is supposed to be designed to follow the law (see above line item). Some police departments are actually terrified of this fact as they will no longer be able to use traffic tickets to help fund their departments.
DUI issues can you get a DUI just for being in a auto drive car in auto mode?
Probably early on as the auto-drive systems cannot be fully relied upon for safety but, this will fade in time as systems become more reliable.
Can have a drop out to manual mode just before an accident to get out of having any liability?
These systems, thus far, keep a log so the police would find out you did this and you can be cited/charged accordingly.
Can they force to have dealer only service?
There are already quite a few laws on the books saying that this is illegal. I don't see that changing.
Can they force updates on you and make you pay data overeager and roaming fees? Where an 1-2GB update can cost as much as a new car?
This is probably the messiest issue you've brought up. FCC rules on wireless and wireless charges are crap to non-existent. If I were you, this is what I'd really watch for.
There are some things that we do that we just don't care. The convenience is more important than other factors such as privacy and free software principles. I can give a personal example: I run paper and dice roleplaying games that I sync character sheets, images and other data to my players. I don't give a rat's ass who can scan them or if some service decides to go out of existence suddenly. None of the data is vital or in need of data security. If they disappear overnight, it's annoying but, I can just upload it on another service as I have backups. And if they really need to know the level of the paladin in my party... whatever.
The problem you're describing is solved by the Windows Phone.
Over my cold, dead body...
Or learn how to fight it.
Having worked in a couple of school districts, I can tell you that a lot of administrators are former high school bullies that grew up to be gym teachers and right on into administration. The behavior of sparing no time or expense tracking down and punishing students that made fun of them on the internet fits the profile of a grown-up bully perfectly.
You're assuming that the goals of the policy-makers in Florida is to provide an quality education to children. If the goal is to syphon off as much public money from them to line their own pockets, then the good money is prepping them for prison so they can continue it right into adulthood. If that is their goal, then everything is working perfectly. Raise them with a crappy education so that crime is a more enticing option, spy on them the whole time and report every action to the police so that they can arrest them and send them off to prison when the time is right for maximum profit.
If the camera light has come on then it is time to accuse the district of kiddie porn. With the current environment, the burden of proof will be on them and with, at least, one district having already been nailed on this issue, it will likely lead to policy changes. The camera on the device, in this context, is supposed to be used only to locate the device if it is reported stolen. If they are capturing pictures of someone under the age of 18 using the device, then there can only be one purpose, at least as far as the public is concerned.
When will people learn that pre orders are complete garbage and stop falling for them? Companies have shown time and time again that they are willing to screw over pre order customers for either other money, promotion or convenience and that doesn't even include when the delivered product is garbage and you can't back out of the sale.