Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="upnorth" data-source="post: 731717" data-attributes="member: 38832">One thing that comes to mind and not mentioned in the article is if authorities for example confiscate a phone from anyone anywhere in the world and Clear is used on it and when the investigation is completed and there was actually no evidence found and the case is dropped, who&#039;s gonna pay for the destroyed phone? As phones nowdays and especially the high-ends are very expensive and common people can&#039;t just snap there fingers as rich people like Ray Ozzie can and get a new one this is one view that IMO I hope is considered but I doubt it because as Ray Ozzie himself state quote : &quot; He is merely trying to prove that something could work. &quot;. Sure I agree and it could work but there will be consequences and not always positive and one is what I now mentioned. If that is ignored and not even discussed it says everything about this project IMO and I strongly hope it&#039;s rejected and especially here in the European Union with tools like GDPR or anything similar.The technique itself behind Clear I like alot and Ray Ozzie is for sure a very intelligent person but even intelligent people sometimes creates monsters even with the best intention as history show us all. Transparency is a keyword in this case IMO and not getting stuck only on it&#039;s technical details and then let anyone else deal with it&#039;s consequences as it&#039;s not the creators fault how it&#039;s finally used. That excuse is IMO too common in many cases and just poor and very naive. Narrow-minded is another word.The article does not fully clearify every pros and cons discussed by Ray Ozzie and the other experts but I hope that it&#039;s shared also with us common people. It&#039;s a story that IMO is well worth to follow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="upnorth, post: 731717, member: 38832"] One thing that comes to mind and not mentioned in the article is if authorities for example confiscate a phone from anyone anywhere in the world and Clear is used on it and when the investigation is completed and there was actually no evidence found and the case is dropped, who's gonna pay for the destroyed phone? As phones nowdays and especially the high-ends are very expensive and common people can't just snap there fingers as rich people like Ray Ozzie can and get a new one this is one view that IMO I hope is considered but I doubt it because as Ray Ozzie himself state quote : " He is merely trying to prove that something could work. ". Sure I agree and it could work but there will be consequences and not always positive and one is what I now mentioned. If that is ignored and not even discussed it says everything about this project IMO and I strongly hope it's rejected and especially here in the European Union with tools like GDPR or anything similar. The technique itself behind Clear I like alot and Ray Ozzie is for sure a very intelligent person but even intelligent people sometimes creates monsters even with the best intention as history show us all. Transparency is a keyword in this case IMO and not getting stuck only on it's technical details and then let anyone else deal with it's consequences as it's not the creators fault how it's finally used. That excuse is IMO too common in many cases and just poor and very naive. Narrow-minded is another word. The article does not fully clearify every pros and cons discussed by Ray Ozzie and the other experts but I hope that it's shared also with us common people. It's a story that IMO is well worth to follow. [/QUOTE]

Verification