Wait long enough and you'll get your wish. Not by eBooks getting cheaper of course but by physical books being re-priced as collector's items. Already happened to songs, movies and physical TV show releases.
Interesting language - its syntax looks like a mix of Rust and Go, with a few of its own idiosyncrasies to distinguish it from those languages.
> Carbon is a concentrated experimental effort to develop tooling that will facilitate automated large-scale long-term migrations of existing C++ code to a modern, well-annotated programming language with a modern, transparent process of evolution and governance model.
This is probably where Go and Rust fail to be C/C++ "successor" languages, as interop between those languages doesn't seem to be as seamless as Carbon aims to be.
It's baffling to me that any sane, healthy person would advocate for invasion of not just one person's privacy (in the case of known or highly suspected criminal activity), but a whole country's people's privacy. (In this case, at least, the privacy of all Apple users in the UK.)
Where does this problem start? Is it a basic education thing that valuing one's own and others' privacy needs to be taught to kids from a young age?
For instance, in the meetings in which these ideas are proposed, why are they not considered a serious, fireable offence, like bringing up racist or sexist comments?
I very much agree. I think to many people the preference for safety/security over privacy is just very tilted toward the former. That especially becomes true once there is some incident that triggers people's amygdalas, like a terrorist attack or even petty crime. Nothing makes "privacy" seem stupid like getting assaulted or otherwise victimized. Although I'm heavily skewed toward the "privacy" end of the spectrum, I do understand people's need and desire for safety above privacy/freedom. I wish they would recognize when they're decision-making is being driven by emotion rather than logic, but alas we can't change humanity.
It baffles me how you seem to think intelligence agencies have some sort of morals or sense of duty to their citizens. These organisations are set up with the sole purpose of spying on all people. They have done it for decades and have done it in some fantasticly dispicable ways. So no, asking a corporation for data on their customers is probably is probably a relatively weak action for them to pull on the grand scheme of things.
Sure, but something like this isn't limited to just the spy agencies. They don't have the authority to do something like this on their own. Therefore there must be some buy-in from people outside the intelligence communities such as MPs, members of Congress (in US), etc. Those are the groups I think GP's comment deserves an answer to.
I totally get the spy agencies' "moral flexibility" requirements, as I've heard it put.
From what I understand, the spy agencies have ways of obtaining your private information that don't necessarily involve blanket requirements to access all users' data (e.g. creative ways of injecting malware into specific people's devices). But those approaches don't scale, of course. And they shouldn't need to.
Intelligence agencies may have their own definitions of morality, but they do not exist outside of the law, which is supposed to be the output of a democratic process.
> For instance, in the meetings in which these ideas are proposed, why are they not considered a serious, fireable offence, like bringing up racist or sexist comments?
Hate to tell ya, those aren't fireable offenses at the highest offices anymore either.
It is, Android handsets are not prevented by Google from selecting an entirely different operating system if they distrust the one installed by the OEM. It is expressly the choice you would make if you expected userland encryption to be mandated broken.
It doesn't protect against every attack (eg. Stingray or evil maid) but it absolutely would protect you from a situation like the one in the OP. Breaking your encryption can only work if the OEM controls your phone more than you do.
Well, except that Play Integrity will effectively prevent you from using any banking, payment or government ID app using a non-OEM operating system. I am writing this from LineageOS, so I am enduring the major inconvenience myself, but I do not expect the average person to do so.
The average person has made a lot of mistakes concerning their identity and privacy. Their habits will have to fundamentally change if they want to avoid dragnet surveillance.
I frankly don't expect the average Apple user to abandon their ecosystem, sunken costs and all that. But I do expect them to reconsider their unconditional support for a company that fights for the right to surveil them. LineageOS is hard to use, but as someone that already got most my apps off F-Droid it's honestly a cinch.
I tend to agree but I'd generalize it a bit more by changing it to: "It starts with UK citizens buying [phones from most tech companies] and expecting their data to be private at all."
On sites that serve user-generated content, how would one technically detect if one's ads are being served alongside CSAM? Wouldn't the ad source need to be able to fully read the contents of the page itself?
Are there good technical solutions to that problem? And whose responsibility is it to solve - the ad source, or the platform through which CSAM is being served?
Definitely something that needs solving, but sounds really hard to solve - unless you just don't serve ads on that site at all.
