The fact that Cox has not yet lost this case does not mean "they have lost nothing".
The judge has set a precedent that, unless overturned by an appeal, has damaged Cox's ability to conduct business as they have been, and has now opened them up to a substantial liability, so yes, they have already lost something. It also means that Cox will now have to spend more time and money to appeal this ruling. And this precedent remains valid even if Cox wins this case. What this article was about was how that same precedent can cause harm to more than just Cox since it can now be cited in other lawsuits, putting other judges in the uncomfortable position of either accepting this ruling as valid, or giving a different ruling which would require them to state why they came to a different conclusion, and judges try very hard to avoid that.
So Cox and other ISPs, and by consequence also their customers, have already lost something.
Well, the hypothetical penalty was written by the same people who paid for the law... it basically allows them to say "ooops, we really believed that but we were wrong".
The "hypothetical penalty" in the DMCA may be toothless, but there are other things the subscriber could sue for. There is libel, where the takedown was sent to a third party causing harm to the subscriber's reputation. Depending on what the takedown was for, there could be tortious interference with contract or business expectancy, if the takedown was for anything affecting the financial condition of the subscriber. There is civil extortion, AKA fraud, if the subscriber can show the takedown was issued with the intent of generating revenue even though the issuer knew or should have known it was invalid. And so on. And remember civil cases are based on preponderance, so you only have to make your side seem more likely to be true than the other side in order to win. As always, please check with your lawyer about which laws are applicable in your particular case if you are faced with this.
Actually they have lost nothing yet as this has not gone to trial. I am sure this judge's comments will be used either to force his recusal or to get a pretty instantaneous appeal.
Wrong. I haven't looked at the actual case, but based on the summary, the judge must have issued a ruling overriding a request for dismissal of one or more counts that were predicated on the protections of the DMCA, and to do this, the judge would have to state his reasoning why. This ruling and its reasoning can then be used by other litigants in their lawsuits as precedent. The problem with this ruling is that judges don't like making new case law so they always prefer to find some other judge who has already ruled on a similar situation and use that judge's decision to then justify theirs, since it would then be the other judge who was wrong if that point is later overturned on appeal. Judges really don't like being overturned and told THEIR decision was wrong, but it is OK, or at least better, if it was the other judge that made a bad ruling.
Your description (and the linked Wikipedia article) are misleading. The Iranian constitution grants 5 seats (out of 270) to four groups: two for the Armenian community (mostly Christian), one for the Assyrian community (mostly Catholic), and one each for the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities. This indirectly gives three seats to Christians, but not because they are Christian, so technically Christians are not guaranteed representation in the parliament, it just works out that way.
Further, some of your other "special rights under the law" in Iran: Christians are legally barred from holding senior government positions, Christian schools (and other non-Muslim schools) by law must have Muslim principals and overseen by a Muslim group, converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death, if a parent dies and there are two siblings, one Christian and one Muslim, the Muslim inherits everything,...
Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?
One thing we are not trying to become is a country like Iran!!
So, let me be clear; you're saying it's alright for the government to deny one the natural right to protect ones body and life from mortal danger, if they don't like some activity you engage in?
He is saying that if you are engaged in illegal activity, not just an activity "they don't like", then any harm that results from your illegal actions that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence, including the death of a person who attacks you trying to steal your contraband, is considered your fault since it wouldn't have happened if you weren't breaking the law. The law is the same in the United States. You can defend yourself, but you will still be considered guilty of causing the other person's death.
I don't think Putin would consider Russia part of the Middle East. And to add to the anonymous coward's list, try living in North Korea, or in Somalia, or Sudan if you aren't Muslim, or Zimbabwe, or Burma, or Eritrea, or China if you are not wealthy or like to speak your mind, or...
You miss the point. To use a car analogy, if the rules said people driving a 1973 Pinto are allowed to use the carpool lane with only one occupant, would some people choose to drive that (arguably) PoS just so they could go faster during commute? Some people will prioritize speed and convenience over quality and safety.
Throttling all VPNs is net neutrality. Throttling all VPNs except those provided by the ISP isn't. Net neutrality is about being neutral as to the source/destination/provider, not the protocol. It's to stop the ISPs abusing their service provider positions to make their versions of services better than everyone else's by artificially damaging other people's.
OK, picture this. The ISP comes out with their own proprietary protocol to stream their video service, maybe just a special data format within HTTP packets - after all, a different protocol could technically be at any level of the protocol stack. Their protocol gets prioritized, while the competitors' protocol gets de-prioritized. The ISP is technically only throttling based on protocol, not source/destination.
The ISP version of Murphy's Law: If it can be abused, they will find a way.
On iOS you have to unlock your phone before you sync with iTunes, so I don't think you can push an app over WIFI without knowing the passcode.
Unless the computer it is syncing with has previously synced with that iPhone. During the first access of the phone by a computer, the phone pops up a box asking if this computer should be trusted, and if the person selects yes, a cookie is exchanged. At a later time, if the phone is hooked to the same computer, because of the cookie it will automatically be allowed to access the phone's contents. This is one of the ways law enforcement uses to access seized phones, by also seizing the computer it syncs with, then using the computer to get into the phone.
As far as pushing apps, as far as I know a new app can only be pushed onto an iOS device by the computer with which it is synced. What is possible however is if the phone is set for auto-updates of apps, then it could be told by the app store that an app needs updating and it would pull and install the "updated" app.
Then I see the need for an app that will automatically wipe the device if it has not been accessed by passcode within some user-configurable period of time. The user sets it for three days or seven days, and if it is kept powered on or if it is booted after that time, poof, no more data. A delay of 30 seconds or a minute can be user enabled so the user could get in if he hadn't used the phone, but law enforcement wouldn't know the app was there so would power it up to see if they could access it, or take it to the user and say "open it", then watch it blank.
And it would be difficult to charge the person with destruction of evidence since such an app has legitimate purposes other than avoiding law enforcement, like to make sure if the phone is lost, stolen by a crook or a competitor, or seized by a border patrol of another country (though not the US of course), the data is permanently made inaccessible.
I know the poster pulled it from the article, but Americium is a by-product from the radioactive decay of Plutonium, not an isotope of Plutonium. Isotopes have the same number of protons, and Pu has 94 while Am has 95. Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.
Your list is obviously slanted to push an agenda, but here goes.
2) The US laws are more restrictive than the rest of the world
This is backwards. You can only be extradited if the act is a crime in both the US and the other country, and if the punishment in the requesting country is not extremely out of line compared to the requested country's, so if the US laws were more restrictive it wouldn't increase the number of extraditions. On the other hand, many countries would like to extradite people from the US for crimes that are not a crime in the US, like for insulting the king, and for others the potential penalty is considered too harsh, such as flogging, have a hand cut off, or even execution, for crimes like theft or drug offenses.
1) US criminals are so smart they never get caught
I think this missed the mark some. More likely, the investigative ability by US authorities is better than most other countries, so the US is more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime, and to where they fled. You can't request extradition unless you know whom to extradite, and from where. You can then add in that US criminals may be better educated than the world average for crooks, so are better at not being caught.
And a few more potential factors you missed:
4) If a criminal flees from a non-US country, due to extradition treaties they are much more likely to flee to a country other than the US.
5) A lot of the recent extraditions are for cyber activities (like this one), but there is a disproportionate cyber presence between the US and most other countries, both in terms of number, and in terms of wealth that makes it more likely for a Ukrainian crook to commit fraud against a US person or company than it is for a US crook to commit fraud against a Ukrainian.
6) For similar reasons, namely wealth and wealth disparity, US entities get targeted more than many other countries. For example, people from South Africa are much more likely to come to the US to steal than a US person is to go to South Africa to steal. If they flee back home, who is going to asking for extradition from whom, and in what kind of numbers?
There are more, but I think that gets the point across.
Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada.
Not sure about California, but in Nevada trespassing is a misdemeanor, per NRS207.200: "Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary, (b) willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor" and "A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods (c) fencing the area" (FYI, NRS 200.603 deals with spying into homes)
Also note the part about burglary. It can be argued that deliberately entering to take pictures of proprietary items constitutes burglary so this could be treated as a felony.
No one said there was a clause saying outside the US anything goes, so that is a strawman.
Re-read the thread, the entire claim of not needing a warrant is based on that 'strawman' AND the claim that the port of entry is not itself U.S. territory.
I re-read it and still don't see anyone claiming that there is a clause in the US Constitution saying "outside of the U.S. anything goes", so your attempt to deflect the label of your argument as a strawman by calling the response a strawman is itself a strawman. Nicely done on using circular logic.
What someone said was that "U.S. Constitutional protections apply only to people (both citizens and non-citizens, including illegal immigrants) on U.S. soil". That is true, since the protections they have while on another country's soil is dictated by that country, and any treaties that may exist. That is not the same as the interpretation "outside of the U.S. anything goes". The problem here is that entering the US is considered different than being IN the US, namely "on U.S. soil". They are attempting to go from outside the US to inside the US, and the border station is the demarc, and as such is not treated as "on U.S. soil". Since it is not possible to conduct the search in the space between the countries, it is done at the first opportunity in a space considered an entry grey zone if you will. It is this necessary classification that I believe you are debating about.
If the latter is true, they have no jurisdiction at all at the port of entry INCLUDING the international concourse of an airport and that 100miles inward from the border they so enjoy claiming. The former is clearly not true.
It isn't true, and no one said that, though obviously you are inferring they did. Again, the issue is ENTERING the US versus being IN the US. Article I Section 8 has granted Congress the power to make this distinction.
The 4th Amendment is a limitation that applies to otherwise Constitutional activities. It is understood to mean they need a warrant for anything beyond a cursory search in all but the most extreme circumstances. Their flimsy claims that the border isn't in the U.S. is just that, they are still restricted from that activity.
Again, the Fourth Amendment restricts searches that are "unreasonable". If you are inside the US, then it is understood to mean that without probable cause they cannot search you. This is getting off the topic about border, but we'll continue. Depending on the situation, they may also need a warrant, not "they need a warrant for anything beyond a cursory search in all but the most extreme circumstances". Take for example they receive a report of a robbery and a car description including a license plate. They find the car, pull the people out, and search the car. All without a warrant, and all very legal. Of course I bet you will probably consider any such typically stop and arrest situations as "extreme circumstances", thereby applying victory by definition.
While I have heard of a logic bomb, they don't blow things up in a literal sense, so your reliance on Article I section 8 is weak as well as far as examining the data on a laptop or phone.
OK, two things. First, what does the fact the term logic bomb refers to a system configuration or piece of software and not an literal explosive device have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to make a sarcastic claim that the only thing that might reside on an electronic device that is detrimental to the welfare of the United States is a logic bomb? Second, this discussion was mostly about why the government had the right to search the items of people entering the US, with some like sjames claiming that the government has no right to search any items being brought in unless they produce a warrant, which as I have explained isn't true
The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It outlines what the U.S. government is permitted to do. Anything not permitted in the Constitution is forbidden to the government. There is no clause that says outside of the U.S. anything goes.
No one said there was a clause saying outside the US anything goes, so that is a strawman. What the Constitution does say in Article I, Section 8, is "The Congress shall have Power To... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", so it seems the Constitution does grant the government the power to make laws to protect the general welfare of the US, like searches at the borders to stop things harmful to the country from entering. It is quite clear. Also, it is considered "reasonable" to conduct such searches, so the Fourth Amendment isn't being violated.
Any weak excuses to the contrary are further damaged when the action is taken against a U.S. citizen.
And as a final death blow, are they trying to claim that if a wanted criminal was spotted in the international concourse of an airport, they would just watch as he boards a plane bound for Argentina because there was no jurisdiction there to arrest him? Or would the U.S. government suddenly assert territorial rights?
No, the US has jurisdiction inside its airports (though there are international treaties regarding international travel that limit it a little), so they would have the right to arrest him. But again this is a strawman since that isn't a person trying to enter the US, it is a person trying to leave. Until his plane is out of US airspace, they have jurisdiction over him (assuming he isn't on a diplomatically protected plane). For a person trying to enter, namely what this discussion is about, please see above.
First, I don't recall any region codes on the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution believed it was obvious that it only applied within the US so forgot to mention that it doesn't apply outside the US. Please forgive them.
Second, what flag flies over the U.S. base in Cuba? Is Castro in charge on the base?
The same flag flying at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Camp Fuji Marine Base in Japan, and at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. In none of these cases is the land the property of the United States. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is leased from the Cubans and is Cuban property. It is like an Italian student in the US renting an apartment and putting out an Italian flag. That doesn't make the apartment Italian soil.
One country leasing land from another country however does often confer certain rights to the lessee (depending on the lease terms) that the student in the example doesn't enjoy, such as self-governance, so no, Castro isn't in charge of the base, and it is because of this principle that the SCOTUS ruled that the prisoners there were entitled to US justice.
Engineer: We can't make this engine pass NOx tests.
Ah, but that wasn't the situation. The engine could pass fine, which is what was happening when the software detected the test conditions. The problem is when running like that the engine didn't have as much power or fuel economy as when operating in dirty mode. This hack was to make the car more appealing to consumers by (in a virtual sense) selling one car to the public, and having the EPA test a different one. This was pure deceit.
That being said, it's weird that nobody has yet targeted Apple, who is certainly an order of magnitude more restrictive than Google, and is as much, or more loaded than Google...
Maybe because Apple isn't forcing a hardware vendor to put their apps on the iPhone against the vendor's wishes. Apple controls both the hardware and the software, and as such by the arguments in this decision, they can dictate what apps are preinstalled. Another possible issue is Android accounts for 65% of the Russian mobile phone market (all phones including dumb ones), while iOS is only 24%.
From the Forbes article, there were many problems, with running the webservers as 'root' just one of them. Another was a pair of zip email attachments could trigger the FireEye software to "open the files for analysis and in doing so open a backdoor on its appliance". It sounds like the researcher heavily redacted his presentation, then presented, which is why we know what we do. It also means a lot of other juicy bits were probably removed and not presented, so the bad we know about (which is bad) is just part of their problems. My guess is they considered what the guy discovered in the process to be revealing of their software's architecture and therefore would be revealing IP.
Slashdot Mirror
How does that make GP wrong?
The fact that Cox has not yet lost this case does not mean "they have lost nothing".
The judge has set a precedent that, unless overturned by an appeal, has damaged Cox's ability to conduct business as they have been, and has now opened them up to a substantial liability, so yes, they have already lost something. It also means that Cox will now have to spend more time and money to appeal this ruling. And this precedent remains valid even if Cox wins this case. What this article was about was how that same precedent can cause harm to more than just Cox since it can now be cited in other lawsuits, putting other judges in the uncomfortable position of either accepting this ruling as valid, or giving a different ruling which would require them to state why they came to a different conclusion, and judges try very hard to avoid that.
So Cox and other ISPs, and by consequence also their customers, have already lost something.
She will probably issue several rulings in favor of both sides over the course of the lawsuit.
US District Court Judge Liam O'Grady is a he.
Well, the hypothetical penalty was written by the same people who paid for the law ... it basically allows them to say "ooops, we really believed that but we were wrong".
The "hypothetical penalty" in the DMCA may be toothless, but there are other things the subscriber could sue for. There is libel, where the takedown was sent to a third party causing harm to the subscriber's reputation. Depending on what the takedown was for, there could be tortious interference with contract or business expectancy, if the takedown was for anything affecting the financial condition of the subscriber. There is civil extortion, AKA fraud, if the subscriber can show the takedown was issued with the intent of generating revenue even though the issuer knew or should have known it was invalid. And so on. And remember civil cases are based on preponderance, so you only have to make your side seem more likely to be true than the other side in order to win. As always, please check with your lawyer about which laws are applicable in your particular case if you are faced with this.
Actually they have lost nothing yet as this has not gone to trial. I am sure this judge's comments will be used either to force his recusal or to get a pretty instantaneous appeal.
Wrong. I haven't looked at the actual case, but based on the summary, the judge must have issued a ruling overriding a request for dismissal of one or more counts that were predicated on the protections of the DMCA, and to do this, the judge would have to state his reasoning why. This ruling and its reasoning can then be used by other litigants in their lawsuits as precedent. The problem with this ruling is that judges don't like making new case law so they always prefer to find some other judge who has already ruled on a similar situation and use that judge's decision to then justify theirs, since it would then be the other judge who was wrong if that point is later overturned on appeal. Judges really don't like being overturned and told THEIR decision was wrong, but it is OK, or at least better, if it was the other judge that made a bad ruling.
In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament.
Your description (and the linked Wikipedia article) are misleading. The Iranian constitution grants 5 seats (out of 270) to four groups: two for the Armenian community (mostly Christian), one for the Assyrian community (mostly Catholic), and one each for the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities. This indirectly gives three seats to Christians, but not because they are Christian, so technically Christians are not guaranteed representation in the parliament, it just works out that way.
Further, some of your other "special rights under the law" in Iran: Christians are legally barred from holding senior government positions, Christian schools (and other non-Muslim schools) by law must have Muslim principals and overseen by a Muslim group, converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death, if a parent dies and there are two siblings, one Christian and one Muslim, the Muslim inherits everything, ...
Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?
One thing we are not trying to become is a country like Iran!!
If the book is "sold out", then how are we supposed to read it? /s
So, let me be clear; you're saying it's alright for the government to deny one the natural right to protect ones body and life from mortal danger, if they don't like some activity you engage in?
He is saying that if you are engaged in illegal activity, not just an activity "they don't like", then any harm that results from your illegal actions that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence, including the death of a person who attacks you trying to steal your contraband, is considered your fault since it wouldn't have happened if you weren't breaking the law. The law is the same in the United States. You can defend yourself, but you will still be considered guilty of causing the other person's death.
I mean... technically the NSA's primary mission is to protect the warfighter (it's a DoD organization unlike the rest of the intelligence agencies).
I think DIA, ONI, NGA, AFISRA, Military Intelligence Corps, MCIA, a a couple others would disagree with the latter part of that statement.
You pick examples from the middle east
I don't think Putin would consider Russia part of the Middle East. And to add to the anonymous coward's list, try living in North Korea, or in Somalia, or Sudan if you aren't Muslim, or Zimbabwe, or Burma, or Eritrea, or China if you are not wealthy or like to speak your mind, or ...
You miss the point. To use a car analogy, if the rules said people driving a 1973 Pinto are allowed to use the carpool lane with only one occupant, would some people choose to drive that (arguably) PoS just so they could go faster during commute? Some people will prioritize speed and convenience over quality and safety.
Throttling all VPNs is net neutrality. Throttling all VPNs except those provided by the ISP isn't. Net neutrality is about being neutral as to the source/destination/provider, not the protocol. It's to stop the ISPs abusing their service provider positions to make their versions of services better than everyone else's by artificially damaging other people's.
OK, picture this. The ISP comes out with their own proprietary protocol to stream their video service, maybe just a special data format within HTTP packets - after all, a different protocol could technically be at any level of the protocol stack. Their protocol gets prioritized, while the competitors' protocol gets de-prioritized. The ISP is technically only throttling based on protocol, not source/destination.
The ISP version of Murphy's Law: If it can be abused, they will find a way.
On iOS you have to unlock your phone before you sync with iTunes, so I don't think you can push an app over WIFI without knowing the passcode.
Unless the computer it is syncing with has previously synced with that iPhone. During the first access of the phone by a computer, the phone pops up a box asking if this computer should be trusted, and if the person selects yes, a cookie is exchanged. At a later time, if the phone is hooked to the same computer, because of the cookie it will automatically be allowed to access the phone's contents. This is one of the ways law enforcement uses to access seized phones, by also seizing the computer it syncs with, then using the computer to get into the phone.
As far as pushing apps, as far as I know a new app can only be pushed onto an iOS device by the computer with which it is synced. What is possible however is if the phone is set for auto-updates of apps, then it could be told by the app store that an app needs updating and it would pull and install the "updated" app.
Then I see the need for an app that will automatically wipe the device if it has not been accessed by passcode within some user-configurable period of time. The user sets it for three days or seven days, and if it is kept powered on or if it is booted after that time, poof, no more data. A delay of 30 seconds or a minute can be user enabled so the user could get in if he hadn't used the phone, but law enforcement wouldn't know the app was there so would power it up to see if they could access it, or take it to the user and say "open it", then watch it blank.
And it would be difficult to charge the person with destruction of evidence since such an app has legitimate purposes other than avoiding law enforcement, like to make sure if the phone is lost, stolen by a crook or a competitor, or seized by a border patrol of another country (though not the US of course), the data is permanently made inaccessible.
I know the poster pulled it from the article, but Americium is a by-product from the radioactive decay of Plutonium, not an isotope of Plutonium. Isotopes have the same number of protons, and Pu has 94 while Am has 95. Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.
2) The US laws are more restrictive than the rest of the world
This is backwards. You can only be extradited if the act is a crime in both the US and the other country, and if the punishment in the requesting country is not extremely out of line compared to the requested country's, so if the US laws were more restrictive it wouldn't increase the number of extraditions. On the other hand, many countries would like to extradite people from the US for crimes that are not a crime in the US, like for insulting the king, and for others the potential penalty is considered too harsh, such as flogging, have a hand cut off, or even execution, for crimes like theft or drug offenses.
1) US criminals are so smart they never get caught
I think this missed the mark some. More likely, the investigative ability by US authorities is better than most other countries, so the US is more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime, and to where they fled. You can't request extradition unless you know whom to extradite, and from where. You can then add in that US criminals may be better educated than the world average for crooks, so are better at not being caught.
And a few more potential factors you missed:
4) If a criminal flees from a non-US country, due to extradition treaties they are much more likely to flee to a country other than the US.
5) A lot of the recent extraditions are for cyber activities (like this one), but there is a disproportionate cyber presence between the US and most other countries, both in terms of number, and in terms of wealth that makes it more likely for a Ukrainian crook to commit fraud against a US person or company than it is for a US crook to commit fraud against a Ukrainian.
6) For similar reasons, namely wealth and wealth disparity, US entities get targeted more than many other countries. For example, people from South Africa are much more likely to come to the US to steal than a US person is to go to South Africa to steal. If they flee back home, who is going to asking for extradition from whom, and in what kind of numbers?
There are more, but I think that gets the point across.
When was the last time US allowed extradition of a US citizen to a foreign country?
Here is one from a couple weeks ago: US citizen extradited to South Korea over high-profile 1997 murder
Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada.
Not sure about California, but in Nevada trespassing is a misdemeanor, per NRS207.200: "Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary, (b) willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor" and "A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods (c) fencing the area" (FYI, NRS 200.603 deals with spying into homes)
Also note the part about burglary. It can be argued that deliberately entering to take pictures of proprietary items constitutes burglary so this could be treated as a felony.
No one said there was a clause saying outside the US anything goes, so that is a strawman.
Re-read the thread, the entire claim of not needing a warrant is based on that 'strawman' AND the claim that the port of entry is not itself U.S. territory.
I re-read it and still don't see anyone claiming that there is a clause in the US Constitution saying "outside of the U.S. anything goes", so your attempt to deflect the label of your argument as a strawman by calling the response a strawman is itself a strawman. Nicely done on using circular logic.
What someone said was that "U.S. Constitutional protections apply only to people (both citizens and non-citizens, including illegal immigrants) on U.S. soil". That is true, since the protections they have while on another country's soil is dictated by that country, and any treaties that may exist. That is not the same as the interpretation "outside of the U.S. anything goes". The problem here is that entering the US is considered different than being IN the US, namely "on U.S. soil". They are attempting to go from outside the US to inside the US, and the border station is the demarc, and as such is not treated as "on U.S. soil". Since it is not possible to conduct the search in the space between the countries, it is done at the first opportunity in a space considered an entry grey zone if you will. It is this necessary classification that I believe you are debating about.
If the latter is true, they have no jurisdiction at all at the port of entry INCLUDING the international concourse of an airport and that 100miles inward from the border they so enjoy claiming. The former is clearly not true.
It isn't true, and no one said that, though obviously you are inferring they did. Again, the issue is ENTERING the US versus being IN the US. Article I Section 8 has granted Congress the power to make this distinction.
The 4th Amendment is a limitation that applies to otherwise Constitutional activities. It is understood to mean they need a warrant for anything beyond a cursory search in all but the most extreme circumstances. Their flimsy claims that the border isn't in the U.S. is just that, they are still restricted from that activity.
Again, the Fourth Amendment restricts searches that are "unreasonable". If you are inside the US, then it is understood to mean that without probable cause they cannot search you. This is getting off the topic about border, but we'll continue. Depending on the situation, they may also need a warrant, not "they need a warrant for anything beyond a cursory search in all but the most extreme circumstances". Take for example they receive a report of a robbery and a car description including a license plate. They find the car, pull the people out, and search the car. All without a warrant, and all very legal. Of course I bet you will probably consider any such typically stop and arrest situations as "extreme circumstances", thereby applying victory by definition.
While I have heard of a logic bomb, they don't blow things up in a literal sense, so your reliance on Article I section 8 is weak as well as far as examining the data on a laptop or phone.
OK, two things. First, what does the fact the term logic bomb refers to a system configuration or piece of software and not an literal explosive device have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to make a sarcastic claim that the only thing that might reside on an electronic device that is detrimental to the welfare of the United States is a logic bomb? Second, this discussion was mostly about why the government had the right to search the items of people entering the US, with some like sjames claiming that the government has no right to search any items being brought in unless they produce a warrant, which as I have explained isn't true
The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It outlines what the U.S. government is permitted to do. Anything not permitted in the Constitution is forbidden to the government. There is no clause that says outside of the U.S. anything goes.
No one said there was a clause saying outside the US anything goes, so that is a strawman. What the Constitution does say in Article I, Section 8, is "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", so it seems the Constitution does grant the government the power to make laws to protect the general welfare of the US, like searches at the borders to stop things harmful to the country from entering. It is quite clear. Also, it is considered "reasonable" to conduct such searches, so the Fourth Amendment isn't being violated.
Any weak excuses to the contrary are further damaged when the action is taken against a U.S. citizen.
And as a final death blow, are they trying to claim that if a wanted criminal was spotted in the international concourse of an airport, they would just watch as he boards a plane bound for Argentina because there was no jurisdiction there to arrest him? Or would the U.S. government suddenly assert territorial rights?
No, the US has jurisdiction inside its airports (though there are international treaties regarding international travel that limit it a little), so they would have the right to arrest him. But again this is a strawman since that isn't a person trying to enter the US, it is a person trying to leave. Until his plane is out of US airspace, they have jurisdiction over him (assuming he isn't on a diplomatically protected plane). For a person trying to enter, namely what this discussion is about, please see above.
First, I don't recall any region codes on the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution believed it was obvious that it only applied within the US so forgot to mention that it doesn't apply outside the US. Please forgive them.
Second, what flag flies over the U.S. base in Cuba? Is Castro in charge on the base?
The same flag flying at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Camp Fuji Marine Base in Japan, and at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. In none of these cases is the land the property of the United States. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is leased from the Cubans and is Cuban property. It is like an Italian student in the US renting an apartment and putting out an Italian flag. That doesn't make the apartment Italian soil.
One country leasing land from another country however does often confer certain rights to the lessee (depending on the lease terms) that the student in the example doesn't enjoy, such as self-governance, so no, Castro isn't in charge of the base, and it is because of this principle that the SCOTUS ruled that the prisoners there were entitled to US justice.
Engineer: We can't make this engine pass NOx tests.
Ah, but that wasn't the situation. The engine could pass fine, which is what was happening when the software detected the test conditions. The problem is when running like that the engine didn't have as much power or fuel economy as when operating in dirty mode. This hack was to make the car more appealing to consumers by (in a virtual sense) selling one car to the public, and having the EPA test a different one. This was pure deceit.
That being said, it's weird that nobody has yet targeted Apple, who is certainly an order of magnitude more restrictive than Google, and is as much, or more loaded than Google...
Maybe because Apple isn't forcing a hardware vendor to put their apps on the iPhone against the vendor's wishes. Apple controls both the hardware and the software, and as such by the arguments in this decision, they can dictate what apps are preinstalled. Another possible issue is Android accounts for 65% of the Russian mobile phone market (all phones including dumb ones), while iOS is only 24%.
From the Forbes article, there were many problems, with running the webservers as 'root' just one of them. Another was a pair of zip email attachments could trigger the FireEye software to "open the files for analysis and in doing so open a backdoor on its appliance". It sounds like the researcher heavily redacted his presentation, then presented, which is why we know what we do. It also means a lot of other juicy bits were probably removed and not presented, so the bad we know about (which is bad) is just part of their problems. My guess is they considered what the guy discovered in the process to be revealing of their software's architecture and therefore would be revealing IP.
Only one word - Ouch!
I can't wait to say "Hey Siri" over the PA system at a large event! Should be entertaining.