Exactly. People seem to have forgotten about the Xanadu project.

How about a situation in which the police are monitoring an informant or undercover police officer who is with the criminals. They're waiting for something to happen before they enter to make arrests or search, or they're ready to go in and protect their CI or undercover officer if things go wrong. What if one officer wants to tell another that he thinks that the bad guys suspect the informant and they should prepare to move in? He may not name the CI, but if the criminals hear this, bad things will happen. Similarly, how about a hostage situation where a sniper needs to communicate that something has changed and he no longer has a shot? Situations like these call for immediate communication.

There have been criminal investigators in China for over 1,000 years. Each "county" (hsien) was governed by a magistrate, who was charged, among other things, with investigating crimes. He had staff to assist him, including officers who functioned as police officers and a local physician who served as medical examiner.

How do they communicate it? Some of these things need to be communicated rapidly - they can't rely on face-to-face communication.

A possible solution is for the encrypted signals to be automatically stored by a third party, a kind of escrow service. The public would automatically gain access to the stored material after a certain amount of time. The police would be able to flag certain communications as requiring longer term secrecy (say those containing the identities of confidential informants). Those desiring access to communications flagged as not to be released could appeal to something like a Freedom of Information panel, which would decide whether secrecy should be maintained.

Some information should not be made public, e.g. the identity of confidential informants, the existence of (legal) wiretaps, details of ongoing operations. The bill acknowledges this. How is this information going to be kept secret while most information is not? Are police to have to remember to press the "scramble" button when they want to say something secret? Are they going to have to use their phones for secrets and their official radios for public information? I'm all for careful oversight of the police, but it is far from obvious how this is to be implemented.

As a licensed radio operator, you are eligible for emergency tags in the state of Tennessee. While that wouldn't insulate you fully from the effects of the law, I can't imagine law enforcement pulling over someone with emergency tags talking into a handheld radio, so this could be a solution to your problem.

The *real* problem is with people who aren't skilled enough at operating a motor vehicle

That is where your sentence should have ended. There is a large majority of people who do not know how to drive a motor vehicle. Braking at green lights, not turning right on red, braking going down the most insignificant hill rather than coasting, not accelerating when the light turns green, not yielding when entering a roadway, driving below the speed limit, making a turn from the middle of the lane rather than the edge, etc.

If I had a dime for every person I've been around who has done any one of the above, I'd never have to work again.

For anyone who wants to actually read the linked story.

If you can steal music, video, and software by claiming nothing was stolen, you can use publicly available data without issue.

Worldcom was not a .com startup, it started as a small LD reseller in the 1980s. By the time of its bankruptcy two decades later, it was the second largest telecommunications provider in the US.

With a drone, I could have it fly to wait on somebody's roof for them to come home, use license plate and facial recognition for target confirmation, and then shoot them in the face as they walk to their front door.

You'll be happy to know Ukraine is doing something very similar: drones with guns. They also have machine guns mounted on mobile drones.

Yep, the perfect way for Musk to siphon public money into his pockets for decades to come.

Correction. To siphon MORE public money into his pockets.

It sure is good to read some good news for once! And from Texas! Who expected that?

You might also note that Pakistan suffered a further split with the separation of Bangladesh. That had nothing to do with the British. It was due to the fact that the incumbent government of Pakistan was bent on imposing strong central rule and the Urdu language and refused to recognize the electoral victory of the Bengalis.