- Last Active
Macsplosion said:gatorguy said:It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
StrangeDays said:sdw2001 said:rgh71 said:Who is the a-hole that voted against this?
I just looked it up. It was Rand Paul, which is who I suspected. I don't think he's made a statement on it yet, but he will often vote against things based on his views on government power.
Yeah I get these calls every single day. Multiple calls a day. Often with my local area code and even some variation of my own number. I have ATT’s Call Protect service but it doesn’t help much. It also incorrectly blocks merchants I want to call me, like Capital One and Apple.
I don’t even answer the phone now unless it’s a contact.
If Apple were to lose this case does that mean Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will be required to have other means of digital software distribution on their platforms (PS, Xbox, Switch) as well? For all you people thinking this is a monopoly, you might want to actually learn what a monopoly is first.
lkrupp said:georgie01 said:The depressing thing about this is not whether law enforcement can insist someone unlock their phone with biometrics, but rather that the spirit of the 5th amendment is not on the mind of anyone who supports forced unlocking with biometrics. If a passcode is protected then biometrics, just another version of a passcode, should be protected. It’s taking advantage of a ‘loophole’ that exists simply because those responsible for the 5th amendment had no way to anticipate biometrics.
This kind of approach to law, however well meaning the supporters may be, is what is eroding our country—the arrogance that we know better than our founders while we’re standing on the success they built... not realising that things are different now only because we’ve been slowly abandoning what they built in the name of ‘progress’.
ericthehalfbee said:clarker99 said:With young kids who love Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars etc. This is a no brainer for me. Guessing $9.99 in Canada or $100/yr. Take my money, well worth it for the hours my family will watch it.
I wonder. All the stuff my family would watch (and my kids) we’ve already seen. So why pay just to watch it again?
I doubt Disney will put all their catalogue up at once. I bet they rotate titles over the year to keep people subscribed. Otherwise, what’s to stop someone from paying for a single month and watching all the stuff they want and then canceling? All Star Wars and Marvel movies for a single $6.99 “rental fee”? Sign me up. But just for one month.