Law enforcement is far over reaching in my opinion. This data is still hackable because all data is hackable. the fact it is inconvenient is a good thing. This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. They can still acquire the data but they will need to spend significant resources to do it. Invading your citizens privacy should be difficult!
You're not obligated to make the lock unlockable for them, though.
The government can probably break many consumer-grade encryption schemes if they so choose to as well, but much like having to break in to your house through your locks instead of merely unlocking them, it raises the cost of law-enforcement doing so, and incentivizes them to make more restrained choices (eg, not taking literally everything they can get their hands on).
They can ask. A court order to reveal your password is enough. If you don't comply you usually run into troubles. This Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law explains how it works in some countries.
Or putting it another way, law enforcement will still be able to break into individual phones, but indiscriminate collection of data on a large scale will become that much more difficult. Which is a good thing.
I agree with mandates. However, I do not believe that a vehicle lease agreement should be treated like a cell phone contract. It should be treated more like a home loan. I would be concerned if people could sign home loans that the penalty for default is that you can only come inside when its cold.
In an emergency, declaring the emergency to the car could be problematic, especially if its not the usual driver.
The company can not lie in this case because it would be trivial to expose the lie by studying any device in the field. I think its more reasonable that she is blaming the device because she was in a scary situation and the device is the best cause given her information. I think it's safer to assume no one has hidden motives here.
hooray earthquake history. If he is talking about aug 23/24th 2014 there were 3 earthquakes over ~24 hours. Im not educated on earthquakes. Just an interesting footnote for a mystery.
"Google would likely have liability if they discovered this and didn't report."
I agree. However, they have to look for it to discover it. The provider is safe in ignorance by default. Google has chosen to pursue this activity like an investigative agency and is using a system that seeks out specific material in an automated fashion.
But i agree that now the ignorance is gone they must report it.
Further i think subject nature of the content is distracting to the conversation. The problem IMO is not that google reported content. Its that google is looking for it.
We don't need the courts to make it illegal. You can damage political adversaries in court of public opinion by leaking other damaging information. protest-plans.ppt could just be a way to identify political threats in order to flag and search other traffic records. we know that the intelligence agencies spy on politicians. A dirty picture or chat affair leaked to the press destroys a user before they even get into an office of power. or detects and removes someone in position to be a whistleblower.
