Municipal Transit Question

It might be argued that fee structures in relation to transit do little more than deter abuse. In a smaller city where ridership is scarce, introducing fares for meandering bus rides could be viewed as next to pointless in terms of offsetting operational costs. Without the free-fare bus service, non-drivers might not be otherwise inclined to get out and spend money around town or participate in community driven events.

I worry that when city coffers are looking skint, and overlooked maintenance issues begin to mount, the fee might jump from a cool $0.00 to some unrealistic rate.

Are 'free' bus rides a boon to local commerce in small cities?

 

As a rate payer in Cold Lake, are you in favour of continuing to subsidize free transit in the city? #ColdLake

— [High Quality]® (@moremoreenough) February 23, 2016

If You've Got Nothing To Hide...

I can understand how the argument, "If you've got nothing to hide, then what are you worried about," would appeal to the simplest of minds. I would argue that not everything an individual might wish to keep private is necessarily incriminating or even humiliating. A person should be able to say - write a book or draft a blueprint without big brother looking over his or her shoulder. In a free and democratic society, it should go without saying that an individual's inalienable right to a reasonable expectation of privacy should be a given.

Says Edward Snowden, "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." 

At the same time, there's no guarantees in life. If I download a free piece of software, for example, I have to presume that whoever designed and developed the software will potentially, and quite likely, have proprietary access to whatever I happen to produce using that software. It's a compromise I make in order to gain access to the fruits of someone else's hard work. I like to think that if I record an original composition using the freely available multitracking software Audacity, I retain intellectual property rights to my own production, but I'm not really certain. I haven't scrutinized the EULA of Audacity, and I ultimately make my music available for free to listen to over online platforms anyway. I could of course choose to disconnect from the Internet while using the software, burn the final mixdown to an optical disc, and (optimistically) remove all residual traces of the software prior to reconnecting to the Internet, but that just seems silly. It would make more sense to use a magnetic tape system to record my music.

Let's say I were to endeavour to write a complex piece of computer software. Should I not also be clever enough to take reasonable precautions to avoid intrusive monitoring by some nefarious party seeking to capitalize on my efforts? In such an instance, I don't see why any government agency should see fit to track my progress and, by extension, steal my code for their own benefit under some pretense of public safety. It doesn't seem a fair or reasonable thing to do. 

Apple's in the news again. This time, it's regarding the cryptography under the hood of their latest mobile computing device. It seems absurd that the FBI can insist on forcing Apple's hand to facilitate access to Apple's proprietary encryption schemes. In my estimation, it amounts to coercing some group who've invented a secret language to translate its nuances and vocabulary under the threat of prosecution. You're the FBI. Investigate it for yourself. If you can't find a way to penetrate the defenses, phooey on you! Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if the whole point of contention were manufactured simply to create a false sense of security... which isn't necessarily a bad thing if it helps ensnare the bad guys. 

Ultimately, my point is that if you really expect privacy online, you'd best get to work developing your own operating system with unique sets of cryptographic techniques. Or better yet, call your: