It is exactly like the protections afford to post office mail and completely unlike the protections offered to data. The Constitution is *not* upheld for data by any branch of government leaving only technological methods.
I know #2 maybe difficult if it is in the firmware inside radio module. If that is the case then I foresee an industry of open source radio modules with a "veto" signal that tells the cellphone when it is hearing a "better" antenna and asks for permission to change. It it does not receive permission, it is forbidden to switch.
So judges should just get into the habit of asking specific questions about Stingray, and anything similarly illegal, EVERY TIME law enforcement asks for a warrant. Force the cops to make a choice between lying to a judge and violating an NDA with the FBI. It would be entertaining to be a fly on the wall and watch the FBI get thrown under the bus a few (dozen) times in front of a variety of judges.
Why would the judges do that? It is in their interest not to know.
Law enforcement is very careful not to record the number of drug searches which turn up nothing just like they are very careful not to record the number of false drug dog indications. If they did that, it would reveal the magnitude of their deceit.
Nothing about you BROADCASTING "YOUR POSITION is private. The 4th is very well written. Claiming this is different is just as bullshit as claiming "with a computer" as a new patent on a 17th century invention.
I actually agree with you but not for the typical reason.
Since none of the three branches of government can protect and enforce the 4th amendment as far as communications, it might as well be treated null and void. Technological measures can protect it at the cost to law enforcement and the courts of the ability to serve lawful warrants but that is too bad; they should have considered the risk of not enforcing the 4th amendment.
Hate to tell you this, but when you send an email, connect to a website, make a cell call, you are handing an entity a message, saying "Please deliver this request to XYZ and bring the reply back to be at ZYX.". The only difference is the technology that is in use.
Except the only thing which should be visible in transit is the IP address, size, and time.
Law enforcement and various other agencies preferred the previous situation where everybody thought the law and Constitution were being followed; it allowed them to search and spy on content with impunity and parallel construction could prevent court and public review. They also worked to sabotage any standards which would make ubiquitous encryption easier.
Now that the Snowden is out of the bag, they will apply pressure where it is most effective and that is the telecommunication companies. That will not help for third party applications and if they become a problem, there are always lawful and unlawful means to get them them as well.
Nothing will happen because they are busy installing metering so they can fine users for excessive data transfers. As a bonus, the ISP gets paid for the DDOS packets as well.
We have to accept that the anger that fuels radicalisation is, in fact, very justified, and we need to face up to the fact that we play a big part in creating these injustices. And then we need to fix the problems.
But how will fixing these problems support the military-industrial complex complex?
Do you really think everyone who is religious would just declare "Well, there's life on another planet, I guess God doesn't exist"? Of course not. They'll just say that God created that life also but the Bible was detailing the creation of life on Earth. The discovery of alien life won't mean much for them.
After they said only God could create organic compounds, the first organic compound synthesized was appropriately urea. That did not change their mind.
Indeed, in the USA theres no need for them to 'sneak' in. No, they walk in openly and serve NSL's to anyone who witnesses them.
They can get a "sneak-and-peek" warrant but I assume they have an alternative and less rigorous process as well and it is not like parallel construction couldn't be used to prevent court review and exclusion of evidence. If they do not find anything, then there is no remedy for the 4th amendment violation; the innocent have no 4th amendment rights.
The risk is that someone who is paranoid enough may have left tells or even worse for the FBI, video surveillance active. What happens when someone who has not been formally notified reveals to the local authorities or just publicizes armed people breaking into their home with or without a secret warrant or its equivalent?
There are things which can be done to improve the situation. Build two (or three) symmetrical noise sources and subtract one from the other to remove common mode influences; three sources allow for redundancy and cross checking. For a simple design, a complex ADC is not required; use a comparator followed by a flip-flop or latch. Use the average DC level of the noise to set the comparator's trip point. Or use an ADC instead of the comparator so that the noise source can also be fully characterized in its raw form.
It is not a war crime unless the enemy is in a position to enforce it against you. In connection with the deliberate strategic bombing of civilian targets, General Curtis LeMay said, "If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
Yes, because it is so difficult to use the cell phone, make a few photos and call the police. Can't be so hard to let the pros do their job. Or can it?
Some employers forbid their employees from turning off their work phones at any time. Furthermore, even if their isn't such a policy in place, any employee who doesn't respond after hours may be seen as "not a team player". Putting pressure on the employers not to allow employee e-mailing outside the working day may be the only way to tackle the problem.
I have not been placed in this situation yet but my planned response is to leave the phone on near a part 15 unintentional radiator.
Sure, offers are made just to turn you down justifying H1B employees. It is like the difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is a win-win for the FBI and any other agencies which have access to this database?
It is exactly like the protections afford to post office mail and completely unlike the protections offered to data. The Constitution is *not* upheld for data by any branch of government leaving only technological methods.
Which will not be approved by the FCC.
Why would the judges do that? It is in their interest not to know.
Law enforcement is very careful not to record the number of drug searches which turn up nothing just like they are very careful not to record the number of false drug dog indications. If they did that, it would reveal the magnitude of their deceit.
I actually agree with you but not for the typical reason.
Since none of the three branches of government can protect and enforce the 4th amendment as far as communications, it might as well be treated null and void. Technological measures can protect it at the cost to law enforcement and the courts of the ability to serve lawful warrants but that is too bad; they should have considered the risk of not enforcing the 4th amendment.
Except the only thing which should be visible in transit is the IP address, size, and time.
Law enforcement and various other agencies preferred the previous situation where everybody thought the law and Constitution were being followed; it allowed them to search and spy on content with impunity and parallel construction could prevent court and public review. They also worked to sabotage any standards which would make ubiquitous encryption easier.
Now that the Snowden is out of the bag, they will apply pressure where it is most effective and that is the telecommunication companies. That will not help for third party applications and if they become a problem, there are always lawful and unlawful means to get them them as well.
How many succeeded though? If the number of failures is low enough, then it will be a good investment.
So is anybody when they make the bets with other people's money. Investment banks come to mind.
Nothing will happen because they are busy installing metering so they can fine users for excessive data transfers. As a bonus, the ISP gets paid for the DDOS packets as well.
To put it another way, law enforcement and the courts are not paid to not fuck you.
Or we are the aliens from the future.
But how will fixing these problems support the military-industrial complex complex?
After they said only God could create organic compounds, the first organic compound synthesized was appropriately urea. That did not change their mind.
And then if you do *not* have a plethora of Internet of Things devices for them to spy on you, that will be suspicious in itself.
I would not rely on Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They can get a "sneak-and-peek" warrant but I assume they have an alternative and less rigorous process as well and it is not like parallel construction couldn't be used to prevent court review and exclusion of evidence. If they do not find anything, then there is no remedy for the 4th amendment violation; the innocent have no 4th amendment rights.
The risk is that someone who is paranoid enough may have left tells or even worse for the FBI, video surveillance active. What happens when someone who has not been formally notified reveals to the local authorities or just publicizes armed people breaking into their home with or without a secret warrant or its equivalent?
There are things which can be done to improve the situation. Build two (or three) symmetrical noise sources and subtract one from the other to remove common mode influences; three sources allow for redundancy and cross checking. For a simple design, a complex ADC is not required; use a comparator followed by a flip-flop or latch. Use the average DC level of the noise to set the comparator's trip point. Or use an ADC instead of the comparator so that the noise source can also be fully characterized in its raw form.
It is not a war crime unless the enemy is in a position to enforce it against you. In connection with the deliberate strategic bombing of civilian targets, General Curtis LeMay said, "If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
Apparently you are not familiar with the new professionalism of our police.
Involving the cops as a witness is an invitation to be arrested.
Nothing, but the judge has already decided what the result of the case will be and this was his chance to further it.
So, it makes perfect sense?
It did not work for me either last time I was called. Next time I will say when asked that I will not follow the judge's instructions.
I have not been placed in this situation yet but my planned response is to leave the phone on near a part 15 unintentional radiator.
Never a shortage of offers?
Sure, offers are made just to turn you down justifying H1B employees. It is like the difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted.