In addition it would also mean that covert physical seals could be better used to detect if your privacy has been invaded (Has the dust bunny on the back of my computer moved?),
I have done this before to catch people invading my privacy when I am not present but these days clandestine video would be feasible.
Do you idiots seriously believe that if the government was going to target you for surveillance, and go to the length of breaking into your home in order to bug it, that they would do so while you were there????
Mistakes happen and it does not have to be the case that you are home. Just somebody has to be home. And it is not like they will be showing anybody they find at home a warrant before entering since notifying you would defeat the purpose of secretly spying on you. Robbers and burglars and other evil doers do not show warrants either.
Second, "direct access" methods put the snoops at a nontrivial risk of getting caught and/or leaving recoverable evidence each time they use them illegally.
In the US, I expect that either citizens defending their home who are shot and killed by black bag operators or the reverse would count as recoverable evidence. I suspect the standing game in the courts that they like to play would be short circuited with a dead body.
In the USA, government simply does not have the authority to prevent encryption. Encryption is beyond it's reach, and would represent a tyrannical seizure of rights which do not belong to government. Remember, in the US, rights are not granted by government. They are granted TO government.
The US government has lots of avenues to outlaw effective encryption. Court decisions which have extended the power of the tax and spend clause and interstate commerce clause give the federal government the authority to do so. There has just been no need because it has been easier to subvert encryption through other means at least up until now.
I would not have to be Faraday cage tight to be effective but it would be easier and cheaper to use some kinetic sculptures which duplicate things like heartbeat and breathing.
However, knowing that "mission creep" is inevitable, and will rapidly overwhelm legitimate uses, we must consider any authorization of new powers to be an authorization of their abuse as well. At least until such time as proper checks and balances are imposed on the system.
Scalia assures me that the increasing professionalism of police forces will prevent this abuse.
. . . if the tech is used without one, the cops who carried it out, the superiors and the department as a whole should be held accountable to the highest extent possible. Last I checked we still have a 4th amendment.
Since the only remedy is the exclusionary rule, the 4th amendment only applies to those who are charged and go to trial.
There is no need to wait for non-circumstantial evidence. The government likes to use lessor evidence standards than beyond a reasonable doubt so lets follow their example.
What is more likely than not? That the NSA missed a public/private key based backdoor designed into an algorithm, strongely supported it after it was revealed that such existed, and bribed RSA over it? Or that NSA designed it in from the start and through a fit of managerial incompetence, trashed any trust they had accumulated with non-government institutions?
I have noticed a trend. There are several engineering software packages that I use that simply will not run under Windows 8. The vendors have basically said use Windows 7 (or even XP) or move to Linux.
I am in the same boat. I have some applications which do not run on newer versions of Windows which could go on a legacy machine but I also have applications which are tied to the operating system through licensing and/or DRM and I cannot afford to buy them again and that rules out switching them to Linux.
I imagine that the Prime Minister thinks that he can force Google and other emails providers to hand over emails to GCHQ and, crucially, the Prime Minister cannot comprehend the idea that people can set up their own email server.
Do you mean like how the United States Government thinks it can force Microsoft in Ireland via Microsoft in the US to do the same?
Slashdot Mirror
I have done this before to catch people invading my privacy when I am not present but these days clandestine video would be feasible.
Mistakes happen and it does not have to be the case that you are home. Just somebody has to be home. And it is not like they will be showing anybody they find at home a warrant before entering since notifying you would defeat the purpose of secretly spying on you. Robbers and burglars and other evil doers do not show warrants either.
So use a battle rifle like a WW2 Garand or similar. Pistols are for concealed carry or until you grab your rifle.
The lack of a silencer on the firearm I was using to defend myself do to federal law defended me so I could not hear what he was saying.
In the US, I expect that either citizens defending their home who are shot and killed by black bag operators or the reverse would count as recoverable evidence. I suspect the standing game in the courts that they like to play would be short circuited with a dead body.
The US government has lots of avenues to outlaw effective encryption. Court decisions which have extended the power of the tax and spend clause and interstate commerce clause give the federal government the authority to do so. There has just been no need because it has been easier to subvert encryption through other means at least up until now.
This varies from state to state and many or most states definitely require licensing of the driver for scooters and mopeds and such.
Were those sockets made by Texas Instruments? They made edge wipe sockets which failed over time whether the chips were regularly replaced or not.
It depends on the State and circumstances and even if not charged as a felony, that can still mean large fines and up to a year in prison.
In all of the places I have lived, scooters and motorbikes still require licenses.
Wireless performs too poorly in water to use but modulated sound would work fine.
Potting the passengers, crew, and luggage into the body of the plane would also prevent hijacking and terrorism.
I watch game-play videos to see if a game is worth buying and sometimes to get ideas about how to play more effectively.
Only when they are charging a civilian with a crime. When the dog is kill or injures by another officer, then they are just equipment.
More likely the evidence will be allow under inevitable discovery or because the police were not expected to know the law.
I would not have to be Faraday cage tight to be effective but it would be easier and cheaper to use some kinetic sculptures which duplicate things like heartbeat and breathing.
Scalia assures me that the increasing professionalism of police forces will prevent this abuse.
There is nothing to worry about; there are enough exceptions to cover the lack of a warrant.
Since the only remedy is the exclusionary rule, the 4th amendment only applies to those who are charged and go to trial.
I prefer to avoid their selected euphemism. They are siezing (and searching) everything but apparently that is not a violation of the 4th amendment.
At least the NSA does not shoot your wife, set you on fire, or shoot bystanders without positive identification.
There is no need to wait for non-circumstantial evidence. The government likes to use lessor evidence standards than beyond a reasonable doubt so lets follow their example.
What is more likely than not? That the NSA missed a public/private key based backdoor designed into an algorithm, strongely supported it after it was revealed that such existed, and bribed RSA over it? Or that NSA designed it in from the start and through a fit of managerial incompetence, trashed any trust they had accumulated with non-government institutions?
I am in the same boat. I have some applications which do not run on newer versions of Windows which could go on a legacy machine but I also have applications which are tied to the operating system through licensing and/or DRM and I cannot afford to buy them again and that rules out switching them to Linux.
Do you mean like how the United States Government thinks it can force Microsoft in Ireland via Microsoft in the US to do the same?
Has the IRS or Congress? If they expect better ethics, then they should set a better example.