You are missing a lot of the things that can be done.

1: Malware can be installed on the camera. Not to infect the camera, but to infect the police station where the evidence is synced. This gives access to the evidence store.

2: These act as beacons for exact locations for police. This puts them in danger. Bad guys get a beacon when the camera is there and on, and can even live stream what the camera sees.

3: Fake evidence can be uploaded to a camera within range. An ANTIFA member could fake a police brutality case, and upload it to the camera, make a claim and point to the footage as evidence.

4: Video files can be edited, and still show a valid signature because the checks are conducted in the wrong places.

5: Every single time a crime is committed that the video is used for evidence for, the camera is simply NOT treated like you have stated. If it were, police would have to bag their camera after every single interaction. Every time the camera is on, evidence can be wiped, altered, or fake evidence implanted.

This isn't theoretical, but was all demonstrated. You can say 'meh' but you clearly haven't thought this through.

neither works anywhere near as good as progressively loading a barbell with weights and engaging in a strength based training routine consisting of squats, deadlifts, and presses.

That whole supply/demand thing isn't a myth?

Unpossible.

"but he won't be allowed to access the Internet"

How exactly is that enforced nowadays?

What a ridiculous bias filled, ill-informed summary.

I learned to touch-type in the US and I've always used the left hand index finger for the 6. Maybe you are the problem here.....

How tough would you be if a foreign government had you singled out and was threatening your kids or spouse?

Just curious internet tough guy.

It is about freaking time.

I didn't actually expect to win. I understand your points and researched enough before I went before the judge to understand the situation was exactly what you described. He did reduce the fine, but I went mostly for the experience. Oh, and I was hoping the officer would be too busy to show up, which I knew was a long shot, but hey...

  It was very interesting.

I tried to use math to defend myself recently when ticketed for using a cel phone in a school zone. As an aside, I was using it legally (hands free) and picked it up after I exited the school zone, the officer said, "you picked it up about 5 feet before the end of the zone."

It was a very, very interesting experience and I pretty much learned the point you just made AC. At the end of the day, in which I defended myself with math/physics the judge said, "I feel like I just had a college physics class. You know, there are two school zones on that street. You may have been in the zone, you may not have. I don't care, you have no business being on your phone on that street. You are free to appeal my decision.

The fine was an annoyance (like 150) but I found it a very interesting experience in how small suburbs within cities make money and how a person going in there to defend themselves has basically no chance.

From the article:
In a blog post earlier today, Auernheimer spelled out Goatse's case. "All data was gathered from a public webserver with no password, accessible by anyone on the Internet," he wrote. "There was no breach, intrusion, or penetration, by any means of the word."

How did he do anything illegal?

Perhaps I misread the story, but this "hacker" wrote a script to gather information that AT&T made public on their website, and HE is the one in trouble?

that is what I read too.

You have clearly not reverse engineered malware before.

There is good, well written, well thought out stuff out there. But it is not the norm.

His numbers are clearly way off. I just made a trip from San Antonio, TX to Glennie MI which is a little over 1600 miles in 25 hours. And I never broke 70 because I was hauling a trailer.