If it is all about health, then state lawmakers will have no problem introducing legislation barring law enforcement from accessing the data, even with a warrant, right? Right?
for our investigatory powers to remain effective against a backdrop of rapid technological change, companies must work openly and willingly with us
How would any of what they are proposing the companies be required to do ever be considered "willing" if they're having to force the companies into it with legislation?
I believe it may work with existing chats but it does not seem to work for starting new ones. It says:
"To help you connect with friends and family, allow WhatsApp access to your contacts."
The two options are:
"Not now" and "Continue"
"Not now" takes you back to the previous screen instead of on to entering a number. "Continue" prompts you to grant access to the Contacts permission. Denying that permission takes you back to the previous screen.
I think the lockout is the more important factor rather than crossplay. If it was just the lack of crossplay problem, it would just be business as usual in terms of past console generations. The preventing people from using a third-party account on other consoles seems like the bigger issue.
There are filters at the top that you can use to select which streaming services you have, including a distinction between Amazon Prime Video and regular Amazon Videos that you can purchase.
Can I stream this game? Can I make money off of those streams?
Yes. We love that people stream and share their experiences in the game. You are free to monetize your videos as well.
Now we're stuck with morons considering using 802.11 in cell phones... and that, my friends, will suck worse that any of the above technologies.
One of the comments on the post about why SMS was failing in the US was a bit eye-opening in terms of how much things can change in less than two decades.
Or you can follow the instructions from Microsoft on how to disable both the upgrade and the notification instead of just hiding the icon from the tray: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351
I agree. I bought the last one to support the EFF (and get some interesting games of course) and without the EFF there, a significantly lower percentage of my money went to charity (I believe it was something like 75% vs 20%).
You're definitely right about the bad timing of removing EFF though.
From my understanding, it's money that is donated to help get that politician re-elected. Without those funds, they can't pay for campaign staff and effectively plaster TV/Newspapers/the Internet with messages that say 'vote for me for congress/senate'. Therefore if they get money and they don't vote a certain way, they may not get more of the money needed to get re-elected from that company, or worse (for them), the company may give that money to their opponent, causing them to lose their seat to someone else that would likely be more willing to support what the company wants (for fear of the same happening to them later).
They're supposedly unconnected, but just think of getting thousands of dollars of support from someone would affect how much you listen to them.
I think a fairly fair way to deal with this would be to only allow searching the device when it is disconnected from the network/cell service/etc. Anything that's on the phone would be accessible, anything that isn't on the phone won't be.
That way the data that's on the person is allowed to be searched (akin to papers/etc on the person) but stuff that is stored on another computer/network isn't allowed (ex: files at the office/home). Stuff on the network should be treated like someone calling up their office/home and requesting someone to give them confidential information on the phone: the person can get the info because it's theirs/they have permission to access it, the police would need a warrant.
However, I would still prefer no searching without warrant or at least good probable cause.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by silentchasm.
If it is all about health, then state lawmakers will have no problem introducing legislation barring law enforcement from accessing the data, even with a warrant, right? Right?
Willingly
Re:
I believe it may work with existing chats but it does not seem to work for starting new ones. It says: "To help you connect with friends and family, allow WhatsApp access to your contacts." The two options are: "Not now" and "Continue" "Not now" takes you back to the previous screen instead of on to entering a number. "Continue" prompts you to grant access to the Contacts permission. Denying that permission takes you back to the previous screen.
Re: Fortnite lockout
I think the lockout is the more important factor rather than crossplay. If it was just the lack of crossplay problem, it would just be business as usual in terms of past console generations. The preventing people from using a third-party account on other consoles seems like the bigger issue.
Re: Re: Re:
There are filters at the top that you can use to select which streaming services you have, including a distinction between Amazon Prime Video and regular Amazon Videos that you can purchase.
These claims seem to go against their site's about page
As people on other sites have pointed out, these claims seem to go against their site's about page: http://www.firewatchgame.com/about/
Cell phones with 802.11
One of the comments on the post about why SMS was failing in the US was a bit eye-opening in terms of how much things can change in less than two decades.
Re:
Or you can follow the instructions from Microsoft on how to disable both the upgrade and the notification instead of just hiding the icon from the tray:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351
Re:
Actually it does include revocation:
https://www.gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#generate_revocation_certificate
That doesn't prevent someone from decrypting your previously received data with your key but I'm not sure anything would be able to do that.
Re:
Good thing they can be divided into really small pieces.
Re: EFF, not Red Cross
I agree. I bought the last one to support the EFF (and get some interesting games of course) and without the EFF there, a significantly lower percentage of my money went to charity (I believe it was something like 75% vs 20%).
You're definitely right about the bad timing of removing EFF though.
Re: Re: Why is this legal?
From my understanding, it's money that is donated to help get that politician re-elected. Without those funds, they can't pay for campaign staff and effectively plaster TV/Newspapers/the Internet with messages that say 'vote for me for congress/senate'. Therefore if they get money and they don't vote a certain way, they may not get more of the money needed to get re-elected from that company, or worse (for them), the company may give that money to their opponent, causing them to lose their seat to someone else that would likely be more willing to support what the company wants (for fear of the same happening to them later).
They're supposedly unconnected, but just think of getting thousands of dollars of support from someone would affect how much you listen to them.
simple
I think a fairly fair way to deal with this would be to only allow searching the device when it is disconnected from the network/cell service/etc. Anything that's on the phone would be accessible, anything that isn't on the phone won't be.
That way the data that's on the person is allowed to be searched (akin to papers/etc on the person) but stuff that is stored on another computer/network isn't allowed (ex: files at the office/home). Stuff on the network should be treated like someone calling up their office/home and requesting someone to give them confidential information on the phone: the person can get the info because it's theirs/they have permission to access it, the police would need a warrant.
However, I would still prefer no searching without warrant or at least good probable cause.