If you are talking police officers they are civilians too. Never forget that. Police != Military.
Unlike civilians police enjoy qualified immunity so injuring or killing bystanders does not have the same repercussions for them. It is very much in their interest to shoot without identifying the target.
The concern is that Emails while *intended* to be private by it's users, Emails are traditionally sent plaintext without any sort of envelope to prevent casual snooping while it changes hands across possibly dozens of devices that are designed explicitly to inspect said data for various purposes. Further, there is typically not signing employed to detect "tampering" or outright forgery on legitimate emails. Under the eyes of the law, there must be an expectation of privacy for privacy to exist. A plaintext, non-direct, persistent communication mechanism that relies on various other devices inspecting it at various levels of detail to determine whether it is suitable for delivery to the recipient doesn't technically qualify in the eyes of the law.
The Fourth Amendment in Cyberspace: Can Encryption Create a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?
I think that was the 68HC811E2. I preferred the 68HC11 series but switched to the PIC16C84 and PIC in general as quickly as possible because Motorola being Motorola, Microchip's PIC16C84 had significant advantages in pricing and availability.
I still have some 68HC811E2 and 68HC24 parts in PLCC packages which are my favorite to work with.
You haven't thought things through well enough. You imagine that you can pay for "protection from highway bandits" and that this is somehow different from government. Wake up. That is what government is. Protection from highway bandits.
So who do I pay for protection from bandits using civil assets forfeiture?
A vent pipe works by preventing a buildup of explosive gas. In this case they are displacing the air inside the strongbox with both fuel and oxidizer so unless the vent pipe is sufficient to relieve the pressure of the detonation, it will not help.
I don't know if it's gotten to SCOTUS yet, but several state supreme courts and federal judges have ruled that you must give the password to decrypt your device if they have a warrant. What happens if you don't? I don't know.... contempt of court, I guess.
Arrange to plausibly not know the password. Leave it up to them to prove that you know it.
You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you.
Assuming for the moment that you can be compelled to reveal a password that you know, one just has to arrange to not know the password or plausibly not know the password before the court orders it revealed. This is surprisingly easy to do leaving law enforcement to use other means like requiring key escrow.
This will not help in the UK but it might in the US. Contempt charges assume that the court orders you to do the possible.
It always amazes me "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but a lawyer has to study years just to understand small subset of them. There are even special courts and judges for specific legal areas.
And the recent United States Supreme Court decision ruled that ignorance of the law *is* an excuse if you are the one enforcing the law.
Every now and then I encounter a hotel with only wired access provided in rooms. (Often they have wifi in public areas.) Is there an answer to using the wifi-only device in such a circumstance.
A WiFi to wired ethernet bridge will solve this handily. Ubiquiti devices can be configured this way.
And wait until they start snooping everyones traffic and data mining it... for profit - I mean, reliability monitoring...
This is the part I found interesting about Marriott position. They rationalized jamming foreign WiFi networks based on the security of their customers but why would I trust Marriott's network anymore than any other foreign network?
The FCC is pretty clearly within their powers in saying that you aren't allowed to intentionally interfere with other people's Part 15 devices by using your own to generate disruptive RF.
This does not preclude occupying the same band in such a manner that the targeted WiFi devices become useless. WISPs have been playing this game with larger operators deploying Canopy or other devices which can be used to effectively jam an entire band. They earned schadenfreude when Ubiquiti WiMax devices did the same back.
I think the FCC rule still allows them to jam devices which are masquerading using their SSID.
The cable companies and others who provide video services want to be able to sell "broadband" while not selling a service that will allows others like Netflix and Hulu from competing with their video services.
And the judicial system removes those barriers because they are not necessary do to the "New Professionalism" of law enforcement as cited by justice Scalia.
physical intrusions like breaking into someone's home and bugging their place of work etc. doesn't scale
That just means it will be expensive so we can add the spying industrial complex to the military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, entitlement industrial complex, and health industrial complex.
Actually, no. In order to do the more involved things, "physical observation, bugging rooms, and breaking into phones or computers", they have to get a warrant. This ups the ante and they must present a convincing argument to the judge for the need to surveil the people in question. This increases oversight, expense, and the human resources required. That means less shotgun approach and more focused surveillance only where needed.
If they are going after the same data that they go after now but need to do black bag operations because of routine unbreakable encryption, then I am sure they will find a way to justify it without the process involved in getting a warrant. And even if they do use warrants, notifying the suspect would defeat the purpose of secret surveillance so physical measures will still be useful to the people spied upon.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike civilians police enjoy qualified immunity so injuring or killing bystanders does not have the same repercussions for them. It is very much in their interest to shoot without identifying the target.
The Fourth Amendment in Cyberspace: Can Encryption Create a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
The short answer is no; encryption does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Wikipedia article about clean room design cites several court cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Alcohol, motor vehicles, blunt objects, prescription medication.
Given the machinations of BATFE and other law enforcement agencies, they are not nearly as paranoid as they should be.
I think that was the 68HC811E2. I preferred the 68HC11 series but switched to the PIC16C84 and PIC in general as quickly as possible because Motorola being Motorola, Microchip's PIC16C84 had significant advantages in pricing and availability.
I still have some 68HC811E2 and 68HC24 parts in PLCC packages which are my favorite to work with.
So who do I pay for protection from bandits using civil assets forfeiture?
A vent pipe works by preventing a buildup of explosive gas. In this case they are displacing the air inside the strongbox with both fuel and oxidizer so unless the vent pipe is sufficient to relieve the pressure of the detonation, it will not help.
Arrange to plausibly not know the password. Leave it up to them to prove that you know it.
Assuming for the moment that you can be compelled to reveal a password that you know, one just has to arrange to not know the password or plausibly not know the password before the court orders it revealed. This is surprisingly easy to do leaving law enforcement to use other means like requiring key escrow.
This will not help in the UK but it might in the US. Contempt charges assume that the court orders you to do the possible.
And the recent United States Supreme Court decision ruled that ignorance of the law *is* an excuse if you are the one enforcing the law.
A WiFi to wired ethernet bridge will solve this handily. Ubiquiti devices can be configured this way.
There is a standard for protecting against these problems now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
This is the part I found interesting about Marriott position. They rationalized jamming foreign WiFi networks based on the security of their customers but why would I trust Marriott's network anymore than any other foreign network?
This does not preclude occupying the same band in such a manner that the targeted WiFi devices become useless. WISPs have been playing this game with larger operators deploying Canopy or other devices which can be used to effectively jam an entire band. They earned schadenfreude when Ubiquiti WiMax devices did the same back.
I think the FCC rule still allows them to jam devices which are masquerading using their SSID.
Think of all the ticket revenue the city can make. They should declare driving on public roads a crime every day.
It would be simpler for the government to forbid the trade of goods and services during an emergency situation.
The cable companies and others who provide video services want to be able to sell "broadband" while not selling a service that will allows others like Netflix and Hulu from competing with their video services.
Nothing is prohibitively expensive for governments. They can always demand "your money or your life".
And the judicial system removes those barriers because they are not necessary do to the "New Professionalism" of law enforcement as cited by justice Scalia.
It will be fun when evidence is found that a major manufacture of integrated circuits has added a back door to their hardware for a security agency.
The feds are the largest single group of petty crooks.
That just means it will be expensive so we can add the spying industrial complex to the military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, entitlement industrial complex, and health industrial complex.
They do have that whole "parallel construction" thing going now though.
If they are going after the same data that they go after now but need to do black bag operations because of routine unbreakable encryption, then I am sure they will find a way to justify it without the process involved in getting a warrant. And even if they do use warrants, notifying the suspect would defeat the purpose of secret surveillance so physical measures will still be useful to the people spied upon.