Are we sure the FBI is not working against us? (Perhaps they are already tapping iCloud data?)

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/08/fbi-privacy-groups-icloud-encryption/

FBI Calls Apple's Enhanced iCloud Encryption 'Deeply Concerning' as Privacy Groups Hail It As a Victory for Users

Apple yesterday announced that end-to-end encryption is coming to even more sensitive types of iCloud data, including device backups, messages, photos, and more, meeting the longstanding demand of both users and privacy groups who have rallied for the company to take the significant step forward in user privacy.

When you can’t shoot ‘em, nuke ‘em?

https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/07/san_francisco_terminates_killer_robots/

San Francisco terminates explosive killer cop bots

San Francisco legislators this week changed course on their killer robot policy, banning the police from using remote-control bots fitted with explosives. For now.

On Tuesday, the city's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to explicitly prohibit lethal force by police robots following a public backlash and worldwide media attention. Under a previously approved policy, SF police robots under human control could have used explosives to kill suspects. The droids were not allowed to use guns.

Prove your innocence?

https://www.politico.eu/article/google-delete-search-result-fake-eu-court-rule/

Google must delete search results about you if they’re fake, EU court rules

People in Europe can get Google to delete search results about them if they prove the information is "manifestly inaccurate," the EU's top court ruled Thursday.

The case kicked off when two investment managers requested Google to dereference results of a search made on the basis of their names, which provided links to certain articles criticising that group’s investment model. They say those articles contain inaccurate claims.

Google refused to comply, arguing that it was unaware whether the information contained in the articles was accurate or not.

… "The right to freedom of expression and information cannot be taken into account where, at the very least, a part – which is not of minor importance – of the information found in the referenced content proves to be inaccurate," the court said in a press release accompanying the ruling.

People who want to scrub inaccurate results from search engines have to provide sufficient proof that what is said about them is false. But it doesn't have to come from a court case against a publisher, for instance. They have "to provide only evidence that can reasonably be required of [them] to try to find," the court said.

Dealing with a free press…

https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-12-08