Spencer314

applebynature said:

beowulfschmidt said:

applebynature said:

anonymouse said:

The purpose of the law is ending end-to-end encryption. Child sex abuse is simply being used as the most emotionally compelling rationale for doing so. Apparently this does result in a lot of confusion.

Ironically, victims of child sex abuse are being exploited by lawmakers who want to end privacy.

You are unequivocally and absolutely incorrect. Did you read the damn bill? No you didn't. Because it doesn't ONCE mention encryption. It literally even spells out ways that a company can itself decide how to accomplish the task. For instance it would allow Apple to implement it's CSAM detection service that they've already developed that does not break encryption as satisfying this law, as I stated from the beginning.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You're just typing BS from your emotional response to this bill, which again, is NOT aimed at encryption. 
Damn you're so confused, aren't you? Well I guess maybe not so much confused as completely lacking any actual knowledge of this topic whatsoever.

No, anonymouse is exactly correct.  Of course the law isn't explicitly purposed to end encryption, that would expose their agenda.  But whatever the stated purpose, the intended effect is to eliminate end-to-end encryption, or weaken it unto uselessness, so that governments can have access to citizens' private communication, "just in case", and "for their own protection".  CSAM is just the excuse they're using to justify it.

Ah, I see you're employing the Slippery Slope Fallacy here. Moving on.

Governments absolutely despise end-to-end encryption. And even western governments have tried to use "think of the children (or the terrorists)" arguments to end it for years. Some of their reasons for despising it are arguably valid, as E2EE takes away a significant intelligence gathering tool that can be used to stop terrorist plots, or to figure out how to prosecute somebody (or better understand if anyone else was involved) after an incident such as a mass shooting incident. But, much of this is also the banal interest in the state just gathering data because that's what they've always done and that's what they always want to be able to do, and because digital technologies made this so much easier to do at scale than back in the paper days and their addicted to it and really don't want to lose it. 

About 4 times more Android phones ship per year vs iPhones (both in the US and globally), which has been consistent for years. That means the 4% of new Android sales that are from former iPhone users represents about 16% of iPhone units shipped. That basically means the number of switchers in both directions is essentially identical within the margin of error. 

Consider me highly dubious that any VR based on a headset, even one built into sunglasses will be more than a niche product anytime remotely soon. 

Maybe Apple will crack the form factor that at least makes it into a mildly successful niche, but this just isn't going to be a runaway success, because you can't get a runaway success in a market that most people won't actually buy into. Maybe it will be more successful than 3D TVs (I do wish I had a 3D TV to watch A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, but I can't think of much else I would watch on one).

Maybe it will (finally!) get Apple seriously into supporting their platforms for top-notch gaming, but if so, the Apple TV and Macs will probably benefit more from that than the market for VR headsets. 

Protecting in a child's devices, as Apple hints at, does seem like the better way to go. Frankly, that would probably be better in general. Either provide evidence to Apple or Microsoft that you are an adult, which would then remove a flag on the internet suggesting you are a child, or provide a very easy and obvious way for parents to create child accounts on their devices. Would it be possible to work around this? Sure. Determined kids are going to find ways around most things, but it will work better than what we do now. It would likely also likely still require government intervention to mandate broad use of "I am a child" indicators, and governments might have to standardize how privacy must work for child accounts. This won't stop CSAM, but is likely a better a lot better for detecting and preventing adult-to-child sexting and actual grooming (rather than whatever social conservatives think "grooming" is these days). It does seem unlikely as a path, though. Governments really do want access to unencrypted data, and it still true that CSAM fears remains their preferred way to get there.

M68000 said:

I’m not getting the point of an always on display… why would anybody want that?  Would hope it is optional in the settings

OLED displays can just light a few pixels without drawing much power. So, an always on display could display the time and date or give battery or connection status without draining the battery. 

Chances are high it will be an optional setting. But, why would you want to turn it off?