> will likely have to watch for hours to catch any incriminating footage
It's not just 'incriminating footage' that's the problem. There are perfectly legal sites I visit that I'd prefer didn't have a photo identifying me. Takes only seconds to snap such a picture if using an exploit like the safari one in April.
Seems the only way to trust the companies in such situations is to exploit the vulnerabilities from multiple, unconnectable devices and locations, over as long a period as possible. If the company cannot list all of the attacks, you know they're bullshitting.
I wonder if compromising your own account can be seen as unlawful. It's much like teenagers being found to break the law by making nude photos of themselves: they are found in possession of prohibited materials, even though they obtained them in a lawful way. Cracking your own account in a lawful way could possibly be done by a court order, but otherwise your actions are prohibited by law, even.though there cannot be a malicious intention.
Totally not a lawyer here, but my impression of laws like CFAA is that it revolves around unauthorized access of resources. If the only resources you access are those for which you have authorization, you might be all right.
After edit: "you might be all right." was a poor choice of words. If you piss off the wrong people, you won't be all right.
I think the flaw in this plan is "your own account". AFAIK, like credit cards, the company maintains that they own the account and can do whatever they want with it, just deigning to give you the right to access it as they see fit.
> It sounds like the kind of thing that Russell Brand was wittering about a couple of years ago - that your senses are the only way to interface with reality, and if you can't sense it it's not there,
Can you post a source for this? I listened to a few bits of Brand over the years, and on this subject he'd say that there's a lot more reality out there, but humans are simply unaware of it due to our limited human senses. Nothing non obvious or controversial.
why is everyone so hellbent of depriving people from the taste of fresh meat? setting aside the specific requirement for processed food in these countries, why would you only want them to be served frozen products, if they can afford to foot the shipping costs? animal welfare is tangential and mostly impact on costs. I'm talking about availability, which people seem very keen of just removing because of perceived (and unsubstantiated) issues with livestock shipment.
What are you talking about exactly? Are thousands of humans dying of heat stress due to spending weeks at sea in literally unbearable conditions? It's horrific.
I'm talking about shipping sheep/animals by sea. The conditions of said shipping can sure use some improvement, but banning it altogether seems like an overreaction.
