On 1 April 2012 14:53, Svip wrote:
On 1 April 2012 13:59, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2012 12:23, Svip svippy@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.