Nah it’s because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.

AI is at its best when it’s opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.

Some of the sources I wanted to sub to but could never afford it are TIME magazine and The Atlantic.

WSJ I don’t believe gives all it’s articles to Apple. Could be wrong.

I wish the NYT was still in there, but they pulled out a while back.

I think The Guardian is in there though.

And that’s why you would never be put on a jury Mr. “Hunt the predators and rapists down and kill them violently”.

If I were in your position, I might be getting equally angry at the meer suggestion that privacy is important, but I would be wrong for being angry at the wrong topic.

Anyway, this fight against encryption is going to lose, for the sake if journalists who report in hostile countries without freedom of speech, for the sake of kids with parents who’d kill them if they came out as trans, and for people in the intelligence industry.

Well it’s understandable that you think the predators are random men in white vans texting your kids, grooming, and abducting them, but in actuality, a ton of the major produces of CSAM are parents or family members.

This doesn’t account for a smaller, but significant percentage of self-producers that post online because they’re following online sexual trends, innocently self-expressing, or self-exploiting.

Having the goverment ban encryption will only undermine the privacy and security of law abiding citizens, and jeopardize national security. Parents don’t have to send messages to their kids really.

The police won’t protect your child from your spouse.

Banning encryption won’t do anything to curb this concern of yours, its like banning car locks because people could hide heroin in cars.

I can empathize with your stance, but I have to tell you, that the “protect children” argument has been used to justify genocide, racial segregation, and so many other violations of civil rights within the last 100 years.

Well yes, because it’s not up to the government to take care of or protect your kids. And it’s your job to make sure they can protect themselves online. That’s just common sense.

Additionally, the government is still effective at catching bad guys without backdoors to encryption, and this stuff doesn’t stop you from monitoring your kids devices.

Yes in the US, Texas for example has used publicly available information to jail moms who travel for abortions.

If the government were to trample on the freedom of privacy, it would affect the right to protest, it would affect freedom of assembly, it would affect freedom of opinion.

China literally monitors most of their citizens communications this way.

We do NOT want governments to invade privacy for the sake of security.

Because, if the government can see what you do, then criminal actors can also see what you do too.

What do you mean deprives us of freedoms?

Everyone has a right to lock their bathroom door. Crime might be comitted behind the bathroom door, but usually there will be other evidence of that without looking in the bathroom, so there is no need for the government to legislate that all bathrooms should remove their locks.

No one ever questions the right of locking your bathroom door.

I wouldn’t give it that much attention. It’s probably yogurt and greenfield or whatever those weirdos are named.

I don’t think this is gonna help Russia. Republicans are gonna look dumb for looking hypocritical when they demand aid be sent to Israel.

Democrats can conveniently package Israel-Ukraine aid to make Republicans, who while resistant to Ukraine aid, see it as the easiest option to satisfy their base.

It’s already happening too. Check the politics sub here.