If they are arguing that, then it kind of makes their part 91 mute... because as soon as it is communicated that you are going somewhere (maybe even before - when you think about it?) then you have scheduled a flight so you should operate under 121?
So, only if you don't tell your passengers where you are going can you share costs...
I think the tortuous logic in this case appears to be that they were treating the match making service which matched pilots and ride sharing/cost sharing passengers as an airline itself.
Small (especially single-engine) planes are SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely to crash than large jets, and pilot experience has very little to do with it.
Well, yes but it is still safer than traveling in a car.
I think this may be a little different though. The economies of "splitting the cost" don't favor the pilot if they weren't intending on making the flight anyway. If an Uber driver was forced to pay for half the cost of the trip you would see a drastic reduction in the number of "ride sharing" (fake taxi company) drivers.
As long as there are mechanisms to prevent this from turning into "the uber of the sky", I think I'd be OK with it. But you know damn well that the number of pilot that happened to be flying between Chicago and Las Vegas three times a day would increase exponentially...
Let's be clear... the FAA is acting as a protection racket. There is absolutely no safety consideration here. They are saying licensed pilots can carry passengers, families, children, as much as they want... just not paying passengers.
It is like saying that licensed doctor's can perform all the surgeries they want, but to actually get paid for the service they need a special license.
The idea that we are living inside a simulation is far from original from Musk. Perhaps the most prominent contemporary proponent of this idea is the philosopher Nick Bostrom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also there is Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" which describes prisoners in a cave viewing the shadows on the wall as their reality and similarly our own view of reality being perhaps like a "shadow" of a meta reality.
By professional standards, everything taught in school is fluffy and watered down. Harel noticed that only now, and she's outraged?
That's the way school works. In kindergarten you learn that the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue, that there are only 3 phases of matter, that the earth is round, that all living things are either plants or animals (if you're lucky they *might* throw in fungus but don't count on it). Later you find out that green is a primary color, the earth is fatter at the equator, plasma is a phase of matter, and there are actually 6 kingdoms.
Even in high school physics, you still mostly learn using simplified versions like frictionless planes and spherical cows. I don't see a problem with this. You teach the simplified version and then a few years later create a better model. This is actually very similar to how real science works where we create a model (say newton's laws) and then slowly expand on it as we find stuff that doesn't conform to it 100% of the time in all conditions.
Yes, good points all around. Nothing wrong with a bit of simplification, take this history of the world in 5 sentences:
"Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it."
Push it to $12 trillion per year deficits and give everyone $30,000 as a baseline income. Sure there would be inflation, but everyone would have $30k per year to deal with it.
In this case, they apparently took a subset of their results and compared it with radar measurements in order to validate the accuracy of their approach. I'd call that more than hand waving.
The last statement in the summary is completely uncalled for. The ad hominem attack does nothing to defend NASA's methodology. It only serves to try to discredit the criticism. That's the biggest thing I have a problem with. If you're convinced the methodology is correct and that the concerns are unfounded, that's enough to fend off the criticism. That the critic was once an executive at Microsoft is totally irrelevant.
I agree. Or usually I agree. In this case the ad hominem comes after the criticism has already been discredited.
to divert research from battery powered electric cars.
I think that may ultimately be the goal... but why would anyone consider hydrogen fuel cells as anything other than a way to store electricity... so really it should be compared to other types of batteries. To me, pronouncing hydrogen fuel cells as a dead end technology is premature. I wouldn't invest in it, but converting electricity into hydrogen to store energy does actually work and perhaps could be made as efficient as storing electricity in batteries. It is pretty far from a "scam" in that you actually have working technology. The issue seems to be cost and efficiency just aren't competitive at the moment. But you can say that about a lot of R&D types of technologies that could end up having some use.
because they were breaking the law for a "good cause" [wikipedia.org], they were allowed to get away with it by both Democrat and Republican administrations
No, they got away with it because Hoover and his minions had dirt on every president since Calvin Coolidge. JFK and RFK despised him, but they didn't dare make a move against him.
-jcr
So did the press and they sat on that information. Truth is that the powers that be valued the dirt that Hoover could dig up more than they cared about the dirt he had on them. Not saying that it wasn't partly defensive, but Hoover stayed in power because he helped those in power.
Just as today those in power care much more about the information that the NSA and FBI can provide than they care about whether it was obtained legally.
Good article, but it is somewhat besides the point. To sum it up it basically says the resolution of the cameras hasn't been good enough to be used to identify people in court. But that is a relatively short term problem as 4k cameras will probably become the new norm. And since people don't have any privacy in public places or on other people's private property, then constant public surveillance is the norm and will only get more effective. The other issue that I think is relevant is that the police and prosecutors still have to be willing and able to do all the hard work to get a conviction, cameras don't address making and sustaining a criminal complaint they are just one piece of evidence.
A significant problem with law enforcement nowadays is that the "policeman on the beat" is no longer "on the beat. She or he is isolated from the community being served and protected by the police.
.
The type of surveillance mentioned in TFA extends that isolation, further removing the police from the people and communities they have sworn to protect and serve.
The communities are not a zoo and the police are not the zoo keeper. Yet that is the model that seems to be emphasized by the current trends in law enforcement.
Yes, lack of direct face to face involvement in the community is a general problem. But cameras are useful after the fact for evidence of a crime or patterns of crime and stopping people with a pattern of crimes is an important part of crime prevention.
That example is a bit complicated as Google did pull the easy access to that reverse phone data and now you have to click through to some shady sites if you want to get the same data.
But maybe that is a good example. I would much rather just have the information available, so that everyone knows they can be tracked and watched in public places than to have just the police or those with some ill intent have the same easy access to the information. Maybe the public can use the information for good purposes or maybe you can change your public behavior to be less vulnerable.
Things like finding out where your kids are going if you are concerned with them hanging out with the wrong people or being abused. Or having citizens able to work together to thwart petty crime that police don't have the resources to police, but the types of crimes that can destroy neighborhoods when left to fester. Or as we have seen recently when cameras are everywhere we can police the police and begin to take some action when some individuals abuse the power entrusted to them.
The code does things...... the API is just a functional (non-creative) description of the correct way to interact with the code.
I think that is basically correct. When talking about an API we are talking about something closer to naming mathematical variables, than to creative expression. Their utility is in in having a common reference name, not in the creativity of the name itself. Like saying I could copyright using a particular set of greek letters to describe physics, or copyrighting the E and the M and the C in E=MC^2.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
I have a real problem with this attitude -- "Oh, well it's still better than other stuff!" That's a lame excuse, frankly. We could still improve the concept significantly.
That wasn't meant as a dismissal of constructive criticism, just a dismissal of broad destructive criticisms of "the system". Like when people say democracy or the free market suck and instead of offering better ideas or improvements they merely want to take down the system because it doesn't conform to some impossible ideal. That is a destructive cycle.
I too think there is plenty of room for improvement. I think Wikipedia has made some improvements over the years with their layered trust system with anonymous users getting less and less trusted. And there is certainly room for more levels of trust that are more verified and/or verified by topic, but there is also a limit to that as people with credentials that are made to go through some certification process or even verification of identity will create its own sorts of biases and potentially unsustainable expenses.
Vandalism is a great concern, but like real world vandalism the only way to deal with that is persistence. Likewise, the propaganda posted by interested parties... sure that is a problem. But one that can only be made worse as you create a system like the old ones where people with money, power and influence had a greater say than those with fewer resources.
To this point, maybe a Game of Thrones quote is in order: "I'm not here to change the way of the world". People with greater resources will always have a greater say, to me the point of Wikipedia is that at least those with fewer resources have some say at all.
Wikipedia could post an integrity score for each of its pages. The score would be based solely on how often edits are reverted. If a page bounces back and forth repeatedly, the score would be close to zero and people would be told to not put much stock in that page. And, again automatically, the page's editor(s) would be notified and, in time, could be consequenced in a variety of ways..
I like the idea of this metric, but it shouldn't be called "integrity" as that is a misnomer. "volatility" score is more like it. Or even more to the point, just put a number of reversions in the past 30 days count at the top of the page to eliminate the obfuscation of what the "score" means.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
For Science and Math and a lot of facts, it is much better. But for propaganda, it's much worse. The encyclopaedia entry on a given politician did not used to be made by that politician's intern or PR firm.
Mod him funny!
Of course, the way it used to be is that if you were friends with the editor of the paper then you got good press. If the publisher of the encyclopedia liked the person or their politics then they got a good write up. There was plenty of bias and clear propaganda in the past.
...fuck Wikipedia. It's entire model can literally be summed-up as, "King of the Hill." Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation.
If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles. They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices. Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
Still it beats by a hundred fold the encyclopedia set that used to adorn every middle class household's and library's bookshelf as their first view of the world. Wikipedia is a treasure of useful information, a starting point for unknown topics.
In such an endeavor striving too much for perfection is the enemy of the good. People always have to understand the perspectives and biases of their sources. That isn't a flaw, that is just reality.
Wikipedia is still the most successful attempt to provide a starting point, an entry point, to all of human knowledge.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
Lack of intent to do harm would likely cover the initial use of the trademark by the police. But once Google asks them to stop, citing potential harm to their brand and especially with this accompanying publicity/press coverage, then it would be much harder to argue that subsequent use of the trademark would be without intent to do harm.
So yes they have to stop unless they want to get sued, and likely Google would get an injunction if it chose to seek one.
Maybe if I could travel an interstate with no interaction, that might qualify.
You can. Tesla autopilot doesn't do intersections, or on-ramps, but once you are on the freeway, you can engage it, and it will self-drive until you reach your exit.
In Teslas with Autopilot, all the hardware is already present for full self-driving, and new features will be added as the software matures.
Or until you run into snow, poor lane markings, etc.... But hey, in ideal conditions it kinda works... It's a step forward, but there are still miles to go...
Yes, it is a step forward. And it is an important step forward. In terms of bootstrapping technology and making iterative improvements based on real world requirements, you now have a consumer car that can autonomously drive from point A to point B on the highway and then have a person take over. Combine that with already available features like self parking, and autonomous braking and you have most of the autonomous abilities you are talking about for fully autonomous. If all that is left is cars that have difficulty driving in poor weather and bad roads, then you are at least on-par with human drivers.
And better than human drivers if the car tells you to not drive in bad weather. The best way to drive in bad weather is not to.
This gov't has its sights set on closing down (and not building) as many nuclear plants as possible.
Ok, fine, then I ask you this gov't: How are you planning on replacing the power loss? You're wiping out the coal industry as well.
What's left?
Well just let the Chinese make batteries for us charged with electricity which they say is from pony rainbow star power and then ship them to us in those giant ships they have. Plug them in, drain the power and then ship them back. So efficient and safe. Never mind those smoke stacks over the horizon... oh and the ships full of coal going back to China.
What's changed is that a magistrate can now issue a warrant for something outside their district rather than only for devices within their district; but only if the location of the device is concealed.
This doesn't seem at all like a radical change in the law, but the issue is the clear potential for abuse of the law. What would constitute evidence that the location of the device is being concealed? Do they need to do a trace route and work with the telecom to determine the device's physical location and stop and seek another warrant when they determine that the suspect device is outside the court's jurisdiction? Or does "The Internet" now count as concealment (with references to Tor being a red herring)? There is some threshold with every word and "concealed" seems like it could be cynically interpreted to be far less than using something like Tor.
under the 5th amendment he can't be compelled to "utter" the passphrase, but he can be compelled to provide the unencrypted contents in most jurisdictions.
Right, so he shouldn't be forced to provide a password, but can be forced to provide the entirety of contents of the computer by logging into the computer himself and allowing the police access. I think it depends on how the warrant is worded, but that is the law. He clearly can't be compelled to provide the password because that is knowledge stored in his brain.
If they are worried about him entering the wrong password on purpose or otherwise pressing some combination of keys that would destroy evidence, then that would elicit a different charge based on the evidence collected when he logged into the computer.
Seems pretty clear situation in that they can hold him for some reasonable period of time, but at some point they will have to let him go if it becomes clear that he isn't going to provide them access to the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are arguing that, then it kind of makes their part 91 mute... because as soon as it is communicated that you are going somewhere (maybe even before - when you think about it?) then you have scheduled a flight so you should operate under 121?
So, only if you don't tell your passengers where you are going can you share costs...
Yeah, I don't see any "tortuous logic" here.
I think the tortuous logic in this case appears to be that they were treating the match making service which matched pilots and ride sharing/cost sharing passengers as an airline itself.
Small (especially single-engine) planes are SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely to crash than large jets, and pilot experience has very little to do with it.
Well, yes but it is still safer than traveling in a car.
I think this may be a little different though. The economies of "splitting the cost" don't favor the pilot if they weren't intending on making the flight anyway. If an Uber driver was forced to pay for half the cost of the trip you would see a drastic reduction in the number of "ride sharing" (fake taxi company) drivers.
As long as there are mechanisms to prevent this from turning into "the uber of the sky", I think I'd be OK with it. But you know damn well that the number of pilot that happened to be flying between Chicago and Las Vegas three times a day would increase exponentially...
Let's be clear... the FAA is acting as a protection racket. There is absolutely no safety consideration here. They are saying licensed pilots can carry passengers, families, children, as much as they want... just not paying passengers.
It is like saying that licensed doctor's can perform all the surgeries they want, but to actually get paid for the service they need a special license.
The idea that we are living inside a simulation is far from original from Musk.
Perhaps the most prominent contemporary proponent of this idea is the philosopher Nick Bostrom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's also peripherally related to the idea of a Boltzmann brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also there is Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" which describes prisoners in a cave viewing the shadows on the wall as their reality and similarly our own view of reality being perhaps like a "shadow" of a meta reality.
By professional standards, everything taught in school is fluffy and watered down. Harel noticed that only now, and she's outraged?
That's the way school works. In kindergarten you learn that the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue, that there are only 3 phases of matter, that the earth is round, that all living things are either plants or animals (if you're lucky they *might* throw in fungus but don't count on it). Later you find out that green is a primary color, the earth is fatter at the equator, plasma is a phase of matter, and there are actually 6 kingdoms.
Even in high school physics, you still mostly learn using simplified versions like frictionless planes and spherical cows. I don't see a problem with this. You teach the simplified version and then a few years later create a better model. This is actually very similar to how real science works where we create a model (say newton's laws) and then slowly expand on it as we find stuff that doesn't conform to it 100% of the time in all conditions.
Yes, good points all around. Nothing wrong with a bit of simplification, take this history of the world in 5 sentences:
"Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it."
Push it to $12 trillion per year deficits and give everyone $30,000 as a baseline income. Sure there would be inflation, but everyone would have $30k per year to deal with it.
In this case, they apparently took a subset of their results and compared it with radar measurements in order to validate the accuracy of their approach. I'd call that more than hand waving.
The last statement in the summary is completely uncalled for. The ad hominem attack does nothing to defend NASA's methodology. It only serves to try to discredit the criticism. That's the biggest thing I have a problem with. If you're convinced the methodology is correct and that the concerns are unfounded, that's enough to fend off the criticism. That the critic was once an executive at Microsoft is totally irrelevant.
I agree. Or usually I agree. In this case the ad hominem comes after the criticism has already been discredited.
to divert research from battery powered electric cars.
I think that may ultimately be the goal... but why would anyone consider hydrogen fuel cells as anything other than a way to store electricity... so really it should be compared to other types of batteries. To me, pronouncing hydrogen fuel cells as a dead end technology is premature. I wouldn't invest in it, but converting electricity into hydrogen to store energy does actually work and perhaps could be made as efficient as storing electricity in batteries. It is pretty far from a "scam" in that you actually have working technology. The issue seems to be cost and efficiency just aren't competitive at the moment. But you can say that about a lot of R&D types of technologies that could end up having some use.
because they were breaking the law for a "good cause" [wikipedia.org], they were allowed to get away with it by both Democrat and Republican administrations
No, they got away with it because Hoover and his minions had dirt on every president since Calvin Coolidge. JFK and RFK despised him, but they didn't dare make a move against him.
-jcr
So did the press and they sat on that information. Truth is that the powers that be valued the dirt that Hoover could dig up more than they cared about the dirt he had on them. Not saying that it wasn't partly defensive, but Hoover stayed in power because he helped those in power.
Just as today those in power care much more about the information that the NSA and FBI can provide than they care about whether it was obtained legally.
Good article, but it is somewhat besides the point. To sum it up it basically says the resolution of the cameras hasn't been good enough to be used to identify people in court. But that is a relatively short term problem as 4k cameras will probably become the new norm. And since people don't have any privacy in public places or on other people's private property, then constant public surveillance is the norm and will only get more effective. The other issue that I think is relevant is that the police and prosecutors still have to be willing and able to do all the hard work to get a conviction, cameras don't address making and sustaining a criminal complaint they are just one piece of evidence.
A significant problem with law enforcement nowadays is that the "policeman on the beat" is no longer "on the beat. She or he is isolated from the community being served and protected by the police.
.
The type of surveillance mentioned in TFA extends that isolation, further removing the police from the people and communities they have sworn to protect and serve.
The communities are not a zoo and the police are not the zoo keeper. Yet that is the model that seems to be emphasized by the current trends in law enforcement.
Yes, lack of direct face to face involvement in the community is a general problem. But cameras are useful after the fact for evidence of a crime or patterns of crime and stopping people with a pattern of crimes is an important part of crime prevention.
That example is a bit complicated as Google did pull the easy access to that reverse phone data and now you have to click through to some shady sites if you want to get the same data.
But maybe that is a good example. I would much rather just have the information available, so that everyone knows they can be tracked and watched in public places than to have just the police or those with some ill intent have the same easy access to the information. Maybe the public can use the information for good purposes or maybe you can change your public behavior to be less vulnerable.
Things like finding out where your kids are going if you are concerned with them hanging out with the wrong people or being abused. Or having citizens able to work together to thwart petty crime that police don't have the resources to police, but the types of crimes that can destroy neighborhoods when left to fester. Or as we have seen recently when cameras are everywhere we can police the police and begin to take some action when some individuals abuse the power entrusted to them.
The code does things...... the API is just a functional (non-creative) description of the correct way to interact with the code.
I think that is basically correct. When talking about an API we are talking about something closer to naming mathematical variables, than to creative expression. Their utility is in in having a common reference name, not in the creativity of the name itself. Like saying I could copyright using a particular set of greek letters to describe physics, or copyrighting the E and the M and the C in E=MC^2.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
I have a real problem with this attitude -- "Oh, well it's still better than other stuff!" That's a lame excuse, frankly. We could still improve the concept significantly.
That wasn't meant as a dismissal of constructive criticism, just a dismissal of broad destructive criticisms of "the system". Like when people say democracy or the free market suck and instead of offering better ideas or improvements they merely want to take down the system because it doesn't conform to some impossible ideal. That is a destructive cycle.
I too think there is plenty of room for improvement. I think Wikipedia has made some improvements over the years with their layered trust system with anonymous users getting less and less trusted. And there is certainly room for more levels of trust that are more verified and/or verified by topic, but there is also a limit to that as people with credentials that are made to go through some certification process or even verification of identity will create its own sorts of biases and potentially unsustainable expenses.
Vandalism is a great concern, but like real world vandalism the only way to deal with that is persistence. Likewise, the propaganda posted by interested parties... sure that is a problem. But one that can only be made worse as you create a system like the old ones where people with money, power and influence had a greater say than those with fewer resources.
To this point, maybe a Game of Thrones quote is in order: "I'm not here to change the way of the world". People with greater resources will always have a greater say, to me the point of Wikipedia is that at least those with fewer resources have some say at all.
Wikipedia could post an integrity score for each of its pages. The score would be based solely on how often edits are reverted. If a page bounces back and forth repeatedly, the score would be close to zero and people would be told to not put much stock in that page. And, again automatically, the page's editor(s) would be notified and, in time, could be consequenced in a variety of ways. .
I like the idea of this metric, but it shouldn't be called "integrity" as that is a misnomer. "volatility" score is more like it. Or even more to the point, just put a number of reversions in the past 30 days count at the top of the page to eliminate the obfuscation of what the "score" means.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
For Science and Math and a lot of facts, it is much better. But for propaganda, it's much worse. The encyclopaedia entry on a given politician did not used to be made by that politician's intern or PR firm.
Mod him funny!
Of course, the way it used to be is that if you were friends with the editor of the paper then you got good press. If the publisher of the encyclopedia liked the person or their politics then they got a good write up. There was plenty of bias and clear propaganda in the past.
...fuck Wikipedia. It's entire model can literally be summed-up as, "King of the Hill." Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation.
If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles. They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices. Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
Still it beats by a hundred fold the encyclopedia set that used to adorn every middle class household's and library's bookshelf as their first view of the world. Wikipedia is a treasure of useful information, a starting point for unknown topics.
In such an endeavor striving too much for perfection is the enemy of the good. People always have to understand the perspectives and biases of their sources. That isn't a flaw, that is just reality.
Wikipedia is still the most successful attempt to provide a starting point, an entry point, to all of human knowledge.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
Which equates to about 700 full time people making $15 per hour. 700 people.
Lack of intent to do harm would likely cover the initial use of the trademark by the police. But once Google asks them to stop, citing potential harm to their brand and especially with this accompanying publicity/press coverage, then it would be much harder to argue that subsequent use of the trademark would be without intent to do harm.
So yes they have to stop unless they want to get sued, and likely Google would get an injunction if it chose to seek one.
Maybe if I could travel an interstate with no interaction, that might qualify.
You can. Tesla autopilot doesn't do intersections, or on-ramps, but once you are on the freeway, you can engage it, and it will self-drive until you reach your exit.
In Teslas with Autopilot, all the hardware is already present for full self-driving, and new features will be added as the software matures.
Or until you run into snow, poor lane markings, etc.... But hey, in ideal conditions it kinda works... It's a step forward, but there are still miles to go...
Yes, it is a step forward. And it is an important step forward. In terms of bootstrapping technology and making iterative improvements based on real world requirements, you now have a consumer car that can autonomously drive from point A to point B on the highway and then have a person take over. Combine that with already available features like self parking, and autonomous braking and you have most of the autonomous abilities you are talking about for fully autonomous. If all that is left is cars that have difficulty driving in poor weather and bad roads, then you are at least on-par with human drivers.
And better than human drivers if the car tells you to not drive in bad weather. The best way to drive in bad weather is not to.
This gov't has its sights set on closing down (and not building) as many nuclear plants as possible.
Ok, fine, then I ask you this gov't:
How are you planning on replacing the power loss? You're wiping out the coal industry as well.
What's left?
Well just let the Chinese make batteries for us charged with electricity which they say is from pony rainbow star power and then ship them to us in those giant ships they have. Plug them in, drain the power and then ship them back. So efficient and safe. Never mind those smoke stacks over the horizon... oh and the ships full of coal going back to China.
What's changed is that a magistrate can now issue a warrant for something outside their district rather than only for devices within their district; but only if the location of the device is concealed.
This doesn't seem at all like a radical change in the law, but the issue is the clear potential for abuse of the law. What would constitute evidence that the location of the device is being concealed? Do they need to do a trace route and work with the telecom to determine the device's physical location and stop and seek another warrant when they determine that the suspect device is outside the court's jurisdiction? Or does "The Internet" now count as concealment (with references to Tor being a red herring)? There is some threshold with every word and "concealed" seems like it could be cynically interpreted to be far less than using something like Tor.
under the 5th amendment he can't be compelled to "utter" the passphrase, but he can be compelled to provide the unencrypted contents in most jurisdictions.
Right, so he shouldn't be forced to provide a password, but can be forced to provide the entirety of contents of the computer by logging into the computer himself and allowing the police access. I think it depends on how the warrant is worded, but that is the law. He clearly can't be compelled to provide the password because that is knowledge stored in his brain.
If they are worried about him entering the wrong password on purpose or otherwise pressing some combination of keys that would destroy evidence, then that would elicit a different charge based on the evidence collected when he logged into the computer.
Seems pretty clear situation in that they can hold him for some reasonable period of time, but at some point they will have to let him go if it becomes clear that he isn't going to provide them access to the computer.