понедельник, 31 июля 2017 г.

Preston Gralla: Is your fridge an IRS snitch?

Back in the Stone Age of the online privacy debate, in 1999, Sun's then-CEO, Scott McNealy, raised the hackles of privacy advocates when he said about being on the Internet, "You have zero privacy, anyway. Get over it." If McNealy was right 13 years ago, then we have less than zero privacy today. And things are just going to get worse. In 1999, some marketers might have been able to make hay by using your search history and browsing habits. Now, more than a decade after 9/11, the government can easily access those things, along with your text messages and emails, and it can, without a warrant, use your cellphone to pinpoint your location. And take a look at what's coming: One day, the devices in your home will gather and transmit information about the most intimate parts of your life. This will ostensibly be for your convenience ("Hi, Preston, it's your refrigerator. Did you know you're almost out of milk?"), but various government agencies are going to covet all that data. They're going to feel the same about all the personal documents we'll be storing in the cloud, just begging to be perused. The courts and federal and state laws have not kept pace with the privacy issues raised by the fact that so much of our data exists in a realm beyond our complete control. And the limits on government's ability to access that data are not well defined. For example, in Louisiana, a federal appeals court is in the process of deciding whether the data gathered by your cellphone as it tracks your location constitutes business records that belong to the phone company or personal records that require greater privacy protections. Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, a judge disallowed evidence that police had gathered from cellphones, some with a warrant, because an officer had read a text message during the initial investigation into the death of a six-year-old boy without first getting a warrant. That case led Rhode Island lawmakers to approve legislation requiring the police to obtain a warrant prior to searching a cellphone, but the governor vetoed the bill, preferring to defer to the courts' discretion in such cases. And while much has been written about the downfall of David Petraeus, we have not reached consensus on what circumstances would justify the unobstructed access to personal email that the FBI utilized while investigating matters involving the former CIA director.playtalk for java phone windows drivers for xbox 360 hdd French android on samsung wave gt s8500 hp scanjet adf c7670a driver windows 7

четверг, 13 июля 2017 г.

Is technology the cause of car crashes? Or the cure?

I totaled my car when I was 16. Here's what happened: It was the middle of the day, and I was listening to the car radio while driving. I started fiddling with the radio while I headed toward an intersection with a green light. The second I looked down at the radio, the light changed. By the time I looked up, I was sailing into the intersection. My car smashed into a brand-new Cadillac crossing from my right. Upon impact, both cars slid toward a corner, pinning a third car against the curb. I was lucky. Nobody was hurt. Insurance paid for everything. But I learned a lesson that would keep me from ever getting into another car accident: Distracted drivers are dangerous. So let's ban gadgets for drivers, right? Movie maker Werner Herzog made a documentary about the dangers of texting while driving called From One Second to the Next. In the film, Werner cites the National Safety Council's figure that texting while driving causes 100,000 accidents per year. For that claim to be true, it would also have to be true that 100,000 accidents have been added to the total number of accidents that have occurred for other reasons. Looking from that perspective, it's a harder argument to make -- since 1996, accident rates in the U.S. have gone down from one year to the next every year except two. So as first mobile phone use and then texting on mobile phones grew more common, the number of accidents in the United States went down. Where are those extra 100,000 accidents? They're hard to find in the overall statistics. It seems possible to me that it's the distracted drivers (like the 16-year-old me) that cause accidents; the accidents are not caused by whatever object it is that distracts those drivers. In other words, yes: Distraction by text messaging causes accidents, but those same distracted drivers would probably find something else to be distracted by if they weren't texting. I've seen people texting while driving. But I've also seen people reading the newspaper, putting on makeup, eating food, poking at GPS devices, arguing with passengers, reaching into the back seat to interact with children, lighting cigarettes and so on. Drivers who do those things are careless about attention, don't understand the risks or simply don't care. I think making laws that minimize accidents caused by distracted drivers is a good idea. However, I'm bothered by an obvious bias against technology. It seems like the more advanced the technology, the stronger the bias. And this bias itself might be dangerous. http://arin83me.aiq.ru/karta.html
http://prevawcha82.wallst.ru/karta.html
http://wasrofoun28.supercharts.ru/karta.html
http://fondcessre29.metastock.ru/karta.html
http://emicpha81.pips.ru/karta.html
http://ringtholi83.pips.ru/karta.html
http://cahelkern20.metastock.ru/karta.html
http://beistuner16.vov.ru/karta.html
http://snowalprov63.dtn.ru/karta.html
http://viatabdi22.pips.ru/karta.html