Also I doubt the content is proliferated through facebook and whatsapp. Perhaps by some careless people and that might lead to further investigations, but the proposal is just extremely inefficient and costs are too high.
Like with most crime fighting, investigators often just find the brain dead criminals, or just manufacture their own make believe criminals, to make it look like their use of funds produced results.
Real investigations are hard, and it's just easier to go after the careless or ignorant, while the actually dangerous and capable evade getting caught.
More funding for teachers that can put eyes on the target because child abuse happens in the vicinity of the victim. If you really want an efficient solution, you have to start there instead of putting everyone under suspicion.
The exception is human trafficking and it isn't a crime done by common criminals or lone offenders, it is done by organized criminal gangs in a large scale that can be targeted individually.
I have no obligation to make any suggestion for not wanting my chats surveilled for that matter.
If the Gestapo did have WhatsApp data it would have been severely more powerful. You are correct that I believe the cost is quite high compared to the very low returns of invasions of privacy like this. Which probably amounts to none.
We increased surveillance for decades. And none of this surveillance had any measurable impact on safety. It is just a short sighted proposal and nothing more. We know where and when kids get abused. The abused is almost always in their vicinity. Internet chat surveillance does not help at all.
Some political scientist argue that after the Lisbon treaty the deficit is a myth but I don't think their statements have much merit. They often argue that parliamentary control wouldn't be the only metric that would quantify democracy but fail to give an answer what would compensate this deficiency.
Not only did the treaty get rejected by some states that were allowed to vote on it, the fact that it is too far removed from citizens and their inadequate participation. In fact I would argue the treaty made it even more undemocratic. The influence of Kutcher compared to European individuals is not the only empirical evidence for that.
The parliamentary control is minimal and there is little overarching political discourse beyond the borders of the nation state. Language barriers are strong and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Until then the commission will run the circus.
It probably depends on the user base of the platform, but I believe it could be one of the worst jobs in the world. If you like the community and content, great, but the usual employed moderators on large social media platforms probably need regular therapy to distance themselves from all the crap they have to read every day. There is a huge difference if you have to read it because it is your job and when you do it on your own because you are hungry for something tasteless and when you can just leave a spicy reply.
> Perhaps they believe the product would be cheaper with abdicating the feature?
Or, perhaps, believe it would get updates? Software in cars tends to grow stale quickly, which is an annoyance if you plan to keep for more than a few years. My eight year old car, for example, has features (had features) that don't work properly anymore because the software didn't anticipate how the rest of the world would change around it and there isn't an update provided to restore it to the original working condition, let alone adding new features that would be nice to have.
Exactly, and cars aren't that hacker friendly. Underneath the design isn't that bad, can-bus makes sense, most modern cars have a good sort of internal network. But there is zero documentation to allow anything aftermarket to plug in later or software to be upgraded past what the manufacturer provides.
And car manufacturers are still very much in a mindset that you make a certain model-year, release it, and then forget about it while you work on the next ones. No upgrade path on software whatsoever.
I can think of one feature that I'd pick the subscription over the upfront cost: Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD). It's $12,000 or $200/month. Five years is the breakeven point, assuming that the prices stay the same (which is a bad assumption). $12k is a big chunk of change - could be around 10% of the car's value. There are also some question marks around whether the FSD is transferable to a new owner.
I've driven in a Tesla with FSD, and it's underwhelming. There's no guarantee that in five years, it will perform significantly better - maybe even require additional hardware or a newer car/platform.
In previous versions "Autopilot" as a name only implied self-driving to some customers, while it wasn't. Now they've gone a step further and branded advanced driver assist as FSD, which really isn't all that self driving at all.
To me, the only people who might not care about such limited-duration features are those looking for a 2-3 year lease. Maybe the manufacturers are trying to get everybody to lease but man, it just pisses me off. Wonder if the state/province's lemon laws can get involved when sh*t just stops working.
But based on our top-of-line 2019 RAV4 the computerization of the car is way more brittle and pointless than the traditional engineering. I expect to have a collection of dead stuff long before the car dies.
