First --- I didn't write this article, but I did a little editing for clarity as it had a lot of run-on sentences and some sentences with no verbs or predicates or objects of the verb in them. Of course, MY edits are gonna be in ---> yup: purple. That said ---- I also warn people that this MAY have some big words in it and they might need help in pronouncing them. There is also a plethora of words (a lot of words) in this post and it certainly falls into the TL;DR category. That's too bad and I feel sorry for those so incriminated. -^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^ A year ago, a crime in San Jose, California, made the news all over the country: “Police Use Fitbit Data to Charge 90-year-old in Stepdaughter’s Killing,” ........was the headline in the New York Times. Unpack those words and it’s clear why the story went viral. First was (Consider that) the Fitbit, (is) a technology used by millions to track health and exercise. The case seemed to confirm that our most personal biological data—movement, heartbeat, sleep—could indeed be subject to surveillance, but also that fitness trackers could become breakthrough tools for police investigations. (That sentence was OK for some reason) Then, of course, there was the 90-year-old suspect, That (, and that) was a head-scratcher. We aren’t used to thinking of nonagenarians as murderers. Intrigued, Lauren Smiley, a relentless reporter, set out to find the story behind the headlines. What Smiley found seemed to be a paradox: The suspect, Tony Aiello, was 4’11” with heart problems and arthritis. He was a backslapping kind of guy who had been the proprietor of a deli for years. During a six-hour interrogation, he called the detectives who grilled him “my friend” and repeatedly denied killing his wife’s daughter, Karen Navarra. And yet, a (A) Ring camera on a neighbor’s house documented Aiello’s car in Navarra’s driveway at the same time that her Fitbit showed that her heart stopped. It was a neat confluence of new technology. Other evidence started to look bad for Aiello, too. (these two sentences SHOULD be melded into a single sentence; but I'll give it a PASS for the nonce.) Fitbit evidence has rarely been introduced in courtroom trials, and questions about its it's* accuracy remain. * (NOTE: there is some adroit discussion as to WHETHER an inanimate object can have a singular-possessive case. I opt for "Yes, it can because I'm old and I remember my English Composition Classes c. 1960-61 or so, but mostly 'cause I say so .) But the (The) Aiello case has relevance beyond one mysterious murder in a San Jose subdivision. As Smiley writes: “as the internet of things (IOT) keeps expanding— (eg) porch cameras aimed out into the street to catch passing cars, cell phones tracking us pretty much always, virtual assistants listening in—criminals are going to have to become more tech-savvy or find another trade. And we We all should realize there is little (that) we can hide. I give the write a C- because this is SUPPOSED to be written by a professional writer!