At the minimum, you should factory reset when crossing borders, and restore from an encrypted cloud backup. But the advice he gives is to use an entirely new phone (new number, new IMEI).
He was picked up because his phone number was on a list.
Statistically, sure. But having intrusive thoughts is one thing, having so many of them you start vocalising them is another. Having so many you start acting on them is further still, but it's along the same path.
Actually, the act of copying a work covered by copyright is not itself illegal.
I'm going to need you to back that up with a source. Specifically, legislation.
If I check out a book from a library and copy a passage (or the whole book!) for rereading myself or some other use that is limited strictly to myself, that's actually legal.
What you're getting at here is the fair use exemption for education or research, which I have already explained. When considering fair use, it has to be for specific use cases (education, research, news, criticism, or comment). Then, after that, the first thing the court considers is whether the use is commercial in nature. The second is the amount of copying.
You checking a book out of a library and copying down a passage will almost certainly be education/research, and probably noncommercial, so it will most likely be fair use. Copying the whole book might also be fair use, but it is less likely to be so. Copying a book for a commercial report is far less likely.
The fact that it's "strictly limited to yourself" has no real bearing in law. Like I say, this isn't research - they're not writing academic papers and releasing their dataset for others to reproduce and prove their work - and even the earliest versions of their training have some presence in the existing commercial product they have developed. Their use is thus not research, so not fair use, and even if you considered it as research it is highly commercial in nature and they are copying full work into their training dataset.
Bringing in the whole "the law treats corporations as people" is further proving you don't really know how IP law works. Just because something is published and freely accessible does not give the reader unlimited copyright to it. Fair use is an extremely limited exemption.
A far better reason not to use WhatsApp is that it is run by Facebook. It was also a primary vector for Pegasus.
Journlists and campaigners.
They targeted him via his phone using Pegasus, a tool made and sold by the NSO, under direct authority of Israel.
Well, if he were the real Tony Stark, that wouldn't be a problem for him.
Japanese and German cars are very reliable, surprise, surprise.
Well more like Russia leaves them to die out in the wilderness.
I'd have to go digging, sorry I don't have the time right now. It was to do with piracy on the OG X-Box. It wasn't the main part of the case, just a tangential point inside the judge's ruling.
Downloading a game to play it would be copyright infringement. Downloading involves making a copy on your device. However one copy really isn't worth the hassle of claiming against, so it never happens. This is why all the Napster cases inflated the counts of infringement by including everyone you connected to as if you had uploaded a complete copy to them, that's the only way to make the claim worthwhile. Also in the US uploading to someone carried punitive damages, similar cases didn't work so well in the UK with actual damages.
Downloading it to study is fair use under the research exemption, particularly if it's a non-commercial activity.
Copyright infringement happens all the time, but the vast majority of cases aren't worth prosecuting, and there's no penalty for a rights holder not to prosecute. Meanwhile, with Trademarks, the rights holder absolutely can lose their rights if they don't prosecute every infringement they become aware of.
I'm sure glad that hasn't happened.