On 1 April 2012 14:53, Svip wrote:
On 1 April 2012 13:59, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 April 2012 12:23, Svip
<svippy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So I would take that article with a grain of
salt. Particularly the
statement about 'real time'. That's not even feasible.
That a desired monitoring regime would require a violation of physics
has *never* stopped a legislative push for such.
But it has always stopped it from being implemented or executed in
practice. While the development is terrifying, it is also important
to note the lack of actual consequences it will have. Other than
being a huge embarrassment.
I don't see why it *couldn't* be implemented.
Note that the real time statement is no different on how they can snoop
your phone calls in real time.
Sure, the storage requirements would be crazy, but I don't see specific
details on what is to be stored, so it may well be implementable given
enough funding.