It makes almost none of it better (we agree on that). But they actually followed some sort of evidentiary procedure. If we’re to be outraged at incompetence and exceeding authority we should know the rules and hammer where they are explicitly wrong and not make stuff up.
From the quoted text it sounded like they did get a warrant to view. I think making a copy so as not to alter or taint the original is standard procedure, if not required, for evidentiary purposes.
I missed mine by 2 months and now it’s part of an expensive your@name.com email service so I’ll never get it (but google reminds me to check every year). I settled for my surname.org; I still had to scoop it up in the early 90s to get it.
I really want the .inc for my personal non-profit, but not for the $2500/yr the registrar wants for it.
Look, Elon, X is never going to be a “thing”. Just get over it and move on.
I wouldn’t mind the various levels of there were a simple, consistent marking standard for speed and power rating.
My takeaway from the article was that Your photos are no longer real because the AI portions have altered the image captured. Your face has been cleared of wrinkles and blemishes, your eyes made larger and rounder, your aging features reduced without your knowledge or input. Of course, with your input your proportions could be manually or automatically enhanced, but also the sky replaced with a more interesting one, or people or objects “in the way” of your desired composition removed and replaced with mimicry in the background.
The adjustments available - both automatic and manual - for balance, clarity, and color temperature have always been available in analog film, even if only to a limited extent in either film selection or in developing. The AI enhancements available in modern software, especially those baked into the Camera apps which are automatic, can be far more manipulative.
Oh, that’s fucking evil. (Lawful evil, to be sure, but still evil)