Have one company that "rents" the antenna and provides a Software Defined Radio as a Service offering, where
an API is simply provided to provision an antenna controller box which has its own IP address that listens on a specified frequency and bandwidth, compresses the bits, and streams them to the consumer.
Then another company that makes a box, which integrates with this service and "selects" television channels, from the radio antenna provider who is acting as a common carrier for "capturing signals in the air" and feeding them through across mediums, with no specific knowledge or interpretation of those signals or what data they might represent.
The content is a product and the cable companies profit from that product, and should therefore pay the OTA broadcasters for its use.
No.... it's OTA. The content is being distributed freely over the air. The cable companies are profiting from value they add in terms of technical expertise, engineering work, the spending of massive amounts of dollars in capital expense to build and maintain infrastructure.
Some viewers have difficulty receiving the OTA content over the air at the quality they want using their own equipment, or the investment is too much, or they lack the expertise to build large antenna structures and setup gateways to stream their content to themselves over the internet, so they are inclined to subscribe to a service to maintain equipment to receive over the air on their behalf and provide them the technical assistance to receive the freely available content in the manner the end user wants.
DirectTV should have zero say in the matter. And whether my neighbor lets just me, or a million people do the same, how does that materially differ?
It matters, because THIS is what the court is relying on, in effect.
They are totally ignoring all aspects of the technological arrangement, including the fact that a dedicated antenna is being rented out.
And saying.. essentially... if the end-user experience --- the end result -- is the same as with a CATV network, or if your business look like a CATV provider, then you are automatically a cable TV provider..., and therefore, you "perform" the work within the meaning if the law.
And this performance is deemed to be a public performance, because, the court chooses to ignore any underlying characteristics of the technology -- and look only at what the end result is, which is, that through all the transmissions made by your service, you are broadcasting each program to numerous people who have selected it.
while it is impossible in the forseeable future to use only electronic voting.
Impossible? How come?
Do what they did in the U.S. buy some computers and set them up as electronic voting kiosks.
Better still...... no special software needed, just a bootable read-only CF card with ChromeOS and a slightly customized config file; when the voter steps in, they power on the machine which immediately loads the Norway internet voting website.
As for the reason for the low turnout, that is a mixed issue. At least we can now assume that access to voting facilities is not one of the problems.
No... it's not really safe to assume that. First of all.... they have 3.6 million registered voters, and only 250,000 were ever eligible to cast votes electronically; secondly, failure to find evidence of a change in overall voter turnout does not mean that it does not exist.
Perhaps access to voting facilities was also a problem with their e-Voting trials.
In order to cast a vote electronically; voters needed to receive a polling card.
The ability to receive the card through the mail on a timely basis and follow the instructions would be necessary to participate.
Also.... this was a new unfamiliar system for both government administrators and for the public, with a learning curve.
It is not clear at all that there would be no effect on turnout, after a broader rollout making ALL voters eligible to vote electronically, and increasing the familiarity of the public at large with the new system over a period of time.
They didn't conclude it CANNOT - they concluded it DID NOT.
No. Their report said they didn't find definitive evidence that it increased voter turnout. It didn't really say to what lengths they went through to try to find evidence of increased turnout.
And their bar was high.... it's not as if Norway suffers from low overall voter turnout.
The fact is... electronic voting should save trees, time, and transportation costs for many people.
If the software is adding costs... one should begin to question if: too many unnecessary requirements have been placed on the software, OR if the software developers' aren't "fleecing" them by selling them ridiculous licensing on a product that could be built relatively inexpensively, compared to the overall costs to the community of manually collecting, counting votes, and verifying counts, all with the possibility of high error rates ---- compared to the relative near-infallibility of an electronic count (at least, assuming a well-engineered well-tested, non-defective computer and software system).
Evidence-based governance is completely foreign to us Americans, you'll have to understand if some of us can't quite understand it.
It's not that I don't agree with evidence-based government. It's that I cannot agree with their conclusion that online voting cannot encourage greater overall turnout.
The fact that 38% of the people took a chance to e-Vote, strongly suggests that much of the population was happier casting their vote electronically, and 62% were either skeptical, unaware, or lacked the ability.
Extremely good results, arguing strongly in favor of e-Voting, I would say.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. Specifically, the Fourth and Fifth and Eighth always apply.
Of course they don't always apply.... the amendments only apply to matters of law where the courts have found that the amendments pertain to. For example: after an implicit waiver of the 5th amendment against testimony against one self: --- in case a defendant signs a confession, without coercion, the right no longer applies, and from then on, the defendant can be compelled to appear as a witness in the case.
In this case; the basic argument is that since disclosing the keys is not testimony, and the defendant already admitted they do actually have the keys --- that the 5th amendment does not prevent law enforcement from being able to compel the defendant to answer the question: which is now not considered testimony in and of itself, but a barrier preventing access to physical evidence under the defendant's control.
This is tantamount to admitting in open court, that you know the exact location of the weapon used to commit the specific murder in this case, and then being ordered by the Judge to provide that location to the prosecution, so that they may secure it: this is not a 5th amendment violation, you implicitly waived your rights when you admitted guilt, and now, you are lawfully required to complete the formalities needed to affirmatively prove your guilt.
Do not forget to include that people with a fun, active lifestyle is less sick than others
Does it actually make their total healthcare costs over their lifetime, less, though?
Everyone dies eventually. Healthcare costs are on average much much higher for older people, as old people tend to get sick more often and need a long list of treatments; you could say "Old age" is one of the oldest illnesses in history, and anyone who lives long enough is guaranteed to eventually have old age, and for most people: the overwhelming majority of their healthcare costs over their lifetime will be incurred in old age.
People who do not have an active lifestyle tend to have a shorter lifespan: so it may be fewer years of more frequent expensive medical treatments due to age: that is, if they die off before old age, then the healthcare costs to society may actually be less.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract.
If the open records law is meant to have any teeth it should be mandatory that there are disclosure requirements in the contract. And any agency, private or otherwise: has no authority to act with government powers, without compliance with the law, regardless of what kind of legal structure they use to organize their organization.
well, that is if you really want everyone to pay according to their own "burden" on the system.
Shh.... burden on the system is an excuse.
They see smoking as detrimental to their health, so they want to tax people to discourage them from engaging in the activity.
It's not about compensating society for extra healthcare expenses.
It's about "maximizing the economic utility function" by having people be happier and do more work and buy more things, by having them live longer.
How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from watching TV?
If you keep expanding the list until you cover every risky acitvity that a few people do... this will add up to significant total costs.
It doesn't help that huge frivolous lawsuits and medical settlements drive up the costs of healthcare, so that one Skydiver hospitalization out of 100,000, may cost a few million bucks, especially if you add their share of all the costs required to mount the search and rescue operation ----- hours spent by trained professionals, equipment, helicopters, fuel: massive fixed costs which should be divided equally by the number of rescues performed over their time in service, plus the hourly costs of labor, plus their share of the labor costs involved with having professionals on standby.
It could well be a few billion or so in taxpayer $$$; once you've just looked at Skydivers.
There's a much better approach. There are secure key storage ICs you can buy for a few dollars a piece at the usual electronics distributors (Digikey etc.), which have a pin or set of pins to which a signal will cause instant secure erasure of the stored data.
This is fine for securing a small amount of data you can retrieve at will through another source, e.g. by entering the passphrase or downloading from remote site.
You wouldn't store a hard drive's worth of data on key storage ICs;
for them to be useful, you actually do need to be able to still get at your own encrypted data after a power blip.
This may be possible. It is way outside the realm of possibility for the average user, even most computer programmers lack the requisite knowledge to rewire the drive. Even if they do rewire the drive, however; there are only so many amps load which the PSU will allow to be delivered, and current limiting devices are readily available.
This is what you take advantage of. Crack the drive open and rewire the drive so that attaching it to a normal power supply destroys the drive.
Maybe... are you sure they don't plug the drive back into the same chassis, after installing the write blocker?
If they're super careful and CYA in their techniques; they may do this first image capture, and then have another analyst repeat the process the second time on their own equipment, in order to accomplish two things: (1) verify the image, (2) independent confirmation of the first captured image.
They may take photographs, visual imaging, and do some other inspections of the hardware for signs of alterations or tampering, before powering things on.
Changes to the power system wiring are trivial detect.
They COULD do those things, but if they don't know ahead of time that it's all booby trapped
If they don't do those things at a minimum, then they are grossly negligent, and the lab themselves may destroy evidence by accident, even if it is not booby trapped.
Also; the defendant may accuse the lab of planting the evidence, and the lab needs to be able to show documented procedures and audit trail, demonstrating they can attest that the data hard drive could not have been changed by any of the analysts; and a verifiable checksum helps ensure the integrity of the evidence needed to help maintain a solid chain of custody.
Nice try, but if the Fifth Amendment does not apply in Massachusetts, then the Eight wouldn't apply either.
Hm... since the fifth Amendment is federal law, and the Mass. Sup. court is a state court;
the question of federal law might be appealed to the federal circuit.
As it is the federal courts that have the final say over questions involving federal law.
Destruction of evidence is a separate crime, and simply having some type of electronic dead man's switch on it does not get one off the hook.
A self-destroying/expiring system is not illegal.
But the real problem with Penguinisto's idea is it won't work.
When computer equipment is seized; the power is immediately removed, and the software can do nothing.
Power removal and system reboots are common enough,
that there's no way the only copy of important data is in RAM;
although, even if there is, authorities might attach a Firewire/PCI/Thunderbolt device, and use Inception to RAM dump the lower 4GB to write-only media.
Which brings me to the next point..... after the seized computer is shipped to a lab;
the first thing they will do is remove the storage media from the computer,
hook it up to a Write blocker (Which is a special hardware dongle that is inserted into the I/O path and
blocks any Write operations, Security commands, or other destructive messages from being sent to the hard drive),
before powering the system back on, booting from a read-only USB stick, and dumping a complete backup image of the entire disk to archive.
In the event that there is an ATA security lock/ATA password setup on the drive; the lab can disconnect the normal disk drive controller, and attach a custom one. If this is an encrypted SSD; they will have equipment and details from the drive manufacturer (obtained under lawful order), required to read the keys off the controller's PRAM chips.
They can also, lift the platters out of the drive, and have those imaged --- in case they suspect attempt to overwrite files with all zeros.
In short: The idea of using two factor in software with expiring keys for data stored on a HDD is extremely naive, if you think a LEO's lab will screw up and lose the data because of it.
Your only chance is if you have a really tamper-resistant HSM with a self-destruct mechanism, and the LEO cannot identify the manufacturer, or work out how to safely get in; considering the fact, forensic labs have many advanced diagnostic tools available that can be used to analyze unknown media modules, and chances are good they can cut in and analyze the logic and data stored on even so-called tamper proof electronics...
Now you're intentionally misinterpreting. I did not say that federal judges are justices of the peace.
I said they are peace officers, and those two are not the same thing.
Horseshit. You are trying to refer to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). "Qualified officers may not carry concealed weapons onto aircraft under the act."
Whoever said anything about concealed firearms? I said firearms, period.
We're talking about preventing a Congressman from flying. If a Congressman is traveling to or from Congress, or is flying as a course of Congressional business, they can't be interfered with by anyone other than the Congressional Sergeant at Arms.
Oh, law enforcement most certainly can prevent members of congress from flying or boarding a plane.
As mentioned previously, the Scope of Article I Section 6 has been limited civil cases.
Williamson v. United States (1908) makes this quite clear.
That Breach of the Peace is not narrowly construed, and includes any alleged criminal activity.
And a suspected terrorist link is a criminal matter.
However.. members of the federal government are likely to avoid interfering with members of congress,
because they are members of the same social clique --- they also want to appease, not anger members of congress: Members of congress get the red carpet treatment, and bypass long lines at airports, and since congress members can always retaliate by ignoring or voting against them issues they care about, or withdraw their funding, and they have some superior access to the courts to bring actions against any law enforcement officer(s) abusing their rights.......
The police are constitutionally not allowed to arrest a congressman, because if they could, then the executive branch could
They can; a congressman can still be arrested if prosecuted for a crime. Williamson v. United States (1908).
The exclusion of congressmen from arrest applies to Civil Arrest only (basically.... incarceration of a defendant being sued in a civil action; detainment of a person by lawful authority at request of the plaintiff in order to answer a civil demand, commonly used against debtors), based on the context of the original English concept of parliamentary privilege, and not other civil processes, and this privilege is only enjoyed while congress is in session.
Civil Arrests are essentially a medieval anachronism no longer done in the united states, although they were used in the 1800s, so the constitutional exclusion from arrest basically has no affect.
The judge in this case, though, will be added to the no-fly list really soon.
Not likely. A federal judge walking around in public has extra powers, by virtue of being a peace officer;
not only does a federal judge have the power to quickly write up an order requiring that they be allowed to board the plane,
and the ability to issue immediate punitive legal actions for non-compliance,
but these judges also have the power to make warrantless arrests under various conditions and
are legally allowed to carry sidearms and other law enforcement tools with them, even onboard.
In short: the TSA is not likely to even joke about messing with federal judges.
Though it does seem the Judicial branch is at least moderately less beholden than the others.
They're not only moderately less beholden.
It would be a major ethical scandal worthy of impeachment, for a Justice to be caught discussing their cases/rulings with politicians, lobbyists, or other representatives outside the court: there is an absolute requirement of unbiased objective interpretation of the law exclusively according to the principles of the law.
That's not really true. Within the region of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Oregon circuit, the order
is in full effect and force immediately.
It may be appealed. In that case, the ruling is still in affect during appeal, unless the feds win a stay,
which they only win if they are deemed likely to succeed in the appeal.
The feds could pull off something clever however ---- like: instead of appealing the ruling; they can outsource
'no fly list enforcement' to the discretion of 3rd parties.
For example: for people flying from outside the US into Oregon, well.... it won't be the US No-Fly-List.
Everyone flying in will have to be routed in from an approved partner country who has their own fly list,
which through international agreement includes all the items in the US no-fly-list.
As for people flying out..... again.... airlines will only be allowed to fly to approved partner countries,
and the US will agree not to let anyone board a plane who is in the partner country's No-Fly list.
As for flights from other places in the US to places inside Oregon.... no problem: outside the court's juridsidction,
US No-Fly-List still applies.
As for domestic flights from inside Oregon to other places in the US...... well the court ruling didn't fully address it, so no problem enforcing a US No-Fly List there.
Slashdot Mirror
Have one company that "rents" the antenna and provides a Software Defined Radio as a Service offering, where an API is simply provided to provision an antenna controller box which has its own IP address that listens on a specified frequency and bandwidth, compresses the bits, and streams them to the consumer.
Then another company that makes a box, which integrates with this service and "selects" television channels, from the radio antenna provider who is acting as a common carrier for "capturing signals in the air" and feeding them through across mediums, with no specific knowledge or interpretation of those signals or what data they might represent.
The content is a product and the cable companies profit from that product, and should therefore pay the OTA broadcasters for its use.
No.... it's OTA. The content is being distributed freely over the air. The cable companies are profiting from value they add in terms of technical expertise, engineering work, the spending of massive amounts of dollars in capital expense to build and maintain infrastructure.
Some viewers have difficulty receiving the OTA content over the air at the quality they want using their own equipment, or the investment is too much, or they lack the expertise to build large antenna structures and setup gateways to stream their content to themselves over the internet, so they are inclined to subscribe to a service to maintain equipment to receive over the air on their behalf and provide them the technical assistance to receive the freely available content in the manner the end user wants.
DirectTV should have zero say in the matter. And whether my neighbor lets just me, or a million people do the same, how does that materially differ?
It matters, because THIS is what the court is relying on, in effect.
They are totally ignoring all aspects of the technological arrangement, including the fact that a dedicated antenna is being rented out.
And saying.. essentially... if the end-user experience --- the end result -- is the same as with a CATV network, or if your business look like a CATV provider, then you are automatically a cable TV provider..., and therefore, you "perform" the work within the meaning if the law.
And this performance is deemed to be a public performance, because, the court chooses to ignore any underlying characteristics of the technology -- and look only at what the end result is, which is, that through all the transmissions made by your service, you are broadcasting each program to numerous people who have selected it.
while it is impossible in the forseeable future to use only electronic voting.
Impossible? How come?
Do what they did in the U.S. buy some computers and set them up as electronic voting kiosks.
Better still...... no special software needed, just a bootable read-only CF card with ChromeOS and a slightly customized config file; when the voter steps in, they power on the machine which immediately loads the Norway internet voting website.
As for the reason for the low turnout, that is a mixed issue. At least we can now assume that access to voting facilities is not one of the problems.
No... it's not really safe to assume that. First of all.... they have 3.6 million registered voters, and only 250,000 were ever eligible to cast votes electronically; secondly, failure to find evidence of a change in overall voter turnout does not mean that it does not exist.
Perhaps access to voting facilities was also a problem with their e-Voting trials. In order to cast a vote electronically; voters needed to receive a polling card.
The ability to receive the card through the mail on a timely basis and follow the instructions would be necessary to participate.
Also.... this was a new unfamiliar system for both government administrators and for the public, with a learning curve.
It is not clear at all that there would be no effect on turnout, after a broader rollout making ALL voters eligible to vote electronically, and increasing the familiarity of the public at large with the new system over a period of time.
They didn't conclude it CANNOT - they concluded it DID NOT.
No. Their report said they didn't find definitive evidence that it increased voter turnout. It didn't really say to what lengths they went through to try to find evidence of increased turnout.
And their bar was high.... it's not as if Norway suffers from low overall voter turnout.
The fact is... electronic voting should save trees, time, and transportation costs for many people.
If the software is adding costs... one should begin to question if: too many unnecessary requirements have been placed on the software, OR if the software developers' aren't "fleecing" them by selling them ridiculous licensing on a product that could be built relatively inexpensively, compared to the overall costs to the community of manually collecting, counting votes, and verifying counts, all with the possibility of high error rates ---- compared to the relative near-infallibility of an electronic count (at least, assuming a well-engineered well-tested, non-defective computer and software system).
We use paper ballots and cardboard ballot boxes. Total cost = pennies per voter.
Paper is expensive.... software should be thousandths of a penny per voter.
Evidence-based governance is completely foreign to us Americans, you'll have to understand if some of us can't quite understand it.
It's not that I don't agree with evidence-based government. It's that I cannot agree with their conclusion that online voting cannot encourage greater overall turnout.
The fact that 38% of the people took a chance to e-Vote, strongly suggests that much of the population was happier casting their vote electronically, and 62% were either skeptical, unaware, or lacked the ability.
Extremely good results, arguing strongly in favor of e-Voting, I would say.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. Specifically, the Fourth and Fifth and Eighth always apply.
Of course they don't always apply.... the amendments only apply to matters of law where the courts have found that the amendments pertain to. For example: after an implicit waiver of the 5th amendment against testimony against one self: --- in case a defendant signs a confession, without coercion, the right no longer applies, and from then on, the defendant can be compelled to appear as a witness in the case.
In this case; the basic argument is that since disclosing the keys is not testimony, and the defendant already admitted they do actually have the keys --- that the 5th amendment does not prevent law enforcement from being able to compel the defendant to answer the question: which is now not considered testimony in and of itself, but a barrier preventing access to physical evidence under the defendant's control.
This is tantamount to admitting in open court, that you know the exact location of the weapon used to commit the specific murder in this case, and then being ordered by the Judge to provide that location to the prosecution, so that they may secure it: this is not a 5th amendment violation, you implicitly waived your rights when you admitted guilt, and now, you are lawfully required to complete the formalities needed to affirmatively prove your guilt.
Do not forget to include that people with a fun, active lifestyle is less sick than others
Does it actually make their total healthcare costs over their lifetime, less, though?
Everyone dies eventually. Healthcare costs are on average much much higher for older people, as old people tend to get sick more often and need a long list of treatments; you could say "Old age" is one of the oldest illnesses in history, and anyone who lives long enough is guaranteed to eventually have old age, and for most people: the overwhelming majority of their healthcare costs over their lifetime will be incurred in old age.
People who do not have an active lifestyle tend to have a shorter lifespan: so it may be fewer years of more frequent expensive medical treatments due to age: that is, if they die off before old age, then the healthcare costs to society may actually be less.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract.
If the open records law is meant to have any teeth it should be mandatory that there are disclosure requirements in the contract. And any agency, private or otherwise: has no authority to act with government powers, without compliance with the law, regardless of what kind of legal structure they use to organize their organization.
well, that is if you really want everyone to pay according to their own "burden" on the system.
Shh.... burden on the system is an excuse. They see smoking as detrimental to their health, so they want to tax people to discourage them from engaging in the activity.
It's not about compensating society for extra healthcare expenses. It's about "maximizing the economic utility function" by having people be happier and do more work and buy more things, by having them live longer.
How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from watching TV?
If you keep expanding the list until you cover every risky acitvity that a few people do... this will add up to significant total costs.
It doesn't help that huge frivolous lawsuits and medical settlements drive up the costs of healthcare, so that one Skydiver hospitalization out of 100,000, may cost a few million bucks, especially if you add their share of all the costs required to mount the search and rescue operation ----- hours spent by trained professionals, equipment, helicopters, fuel: massive fixed costs which should be divided equally by the number of rescues performed over their time in service, plus the hourly costs of labor, plus their share of the labor costs involved with having professionals on standby.
It could well be a few billion or so in taxpayer $$$; once you've just looked at Skydivers.
There's a much better approach. There are secure key storage ICs you can buy for a few dollars a piece at the usual electronics distributors (Digikey etc.), which have a pin or set of pins to which a signal will cause instant secure erasure of the stored data.
This is fine for securing a small amount of data you can retrieve at will through another source, e.g. by entering the passphrase or downloading from remote site.
You wouldn't store a hard drive's worth of data on key storage ICs; for them to be useful, you actually do need to be able to still get at your own encrypted data after a power blip.
This may be possible. It is way outside the realm of possibility for the average user, even most computer programmers lack the requisite knowledge to rewire the drive. Even if they do rewire the drive, however; there are only so many amps load which the PSU will allow to be delivered, and current limiting devices are readily available.
This is what you take advantage of. Crack the drive open and rewire the drive so that attaching it to a normal power supply destroys the drive.
Maybe... are you sure they don't plug the drive back into the same chassis, after installing the write blocker?
If they're super careful and CYA in their techniques; they may do this first image capture, and then have another analyst repeat the process the second time on their own equipment, in order to accomplish two things: (1) verify the image, (2) independent confirmation of the first captured image.
They may take photographs, visual imaging, and do some other inspections of the hardware for signs of alterations or tampering, before powering things on. Changes to the power system wiring are trivial detect.
They COULD do those things, but if they don't know ahead of time that it's all booby trapped
If they don't do those things at a minimum, then they are grossly negligent, and the lab themselves may destroy evidence by accident, even if it is not booby trapped.
Also; the defendant may accuse the lab of planting the evidence, and the lab needs to be able to show documented procedures and audit trail, demonstrating they can attest that the data hard drive could not have been changed by any of the analysts; and a verifiable checksum helps ensure the integrity of the evidence needed to help maintain a solid chain of custody.
Nice try, but if the Fifth Amendment does not apply in Massachusetts, then the Eight wouldn't apply either.
Hm... since the fifth Amendment is federal law, and the Mass. Sup. court is a state court; the question of federal law might be appealed to the federal circuit.
As it is the federal courts that have the final say over questions involving federal law.
Destruction of evidence is a separate crime, and simply having some type of electronic dead man's switch on it does not get one off the hook.
A self-destroying/expiring system is not illegal.
But the real problem with Penguinisto's idea is it won't work. When computer equipment is seized; the power is immediately removed, and the software can do nothing.
Power removal and system reboots are common enough, that there's no way the only copy of important data is in RAM; although, even if there is, authorities might attach a Firewire/PCI/Thunderbolt device, and use Inception to RAM dump the lower 4GB to write-only media.
Which brings me to the next point..... after the seized computer is shipped to a lab; the first thing they will do is remove the storage media from the computer, hook it up to a Write blocker (Which is a special hardware dongle that is inserted into the I/O path and blocks any Write operations, Security commands, or other destructive messages from being sent to the hard drive), before powering the system back on, booting from a read-only USB stick, and dumping a complete backup image of the entire disk to archive.
In the event that there is an ATA security lock/ATA password setup on the drive; the lab can disconnect the normal disk drive controller, and attach a custom one. If this is an encrypted SSD; they will have equipment and details from the drive manufacturer (obtained under lawful order), required to read the keys off the controller's PRAM chips.
They can also, lift the platters out of the drive, and have those imaged --- in case they suspect attempt to overwrite files with all zeros.
In short: The idea of using two factor in software with expiring keys for data stored on a HDD is extremely naive, if you think a LEO's lab will screw up and lose the data because of it.
Your only chance is if you have a really tamper-resistant HSM with a self-destruct mechanism, and the LEO cannot identify the manufacturer, or work out how to safely get in; considering the fact, forensic labs have many advanced diagnostic tools available that can be used to analyze unknown media modules, and chances are good they can cut in and analyze the logic and data stored on even so-called tamper proof electronics...
Bullshit, federal judges are not peace officers.
Now you're intentionally misinterpreting. I did not say that federal judges are justices of the peace. I said they are peace officers, and those two are not the same thing.
Horseshit. You are trying to refer to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). "Qualified officers may not carry concealed weapons onto aircraft under the act."
Whoever said anything about concealed firearms? I said firearms, period.
A loose latch on door to the garbage bin in the galley is not likely to take the entire plane down.
No cell phones on board!
And don't even think about having passenger/pilot-accessible Ethernet ports on board connected to your flight control system's LAN.
We're talking about preventing a Congressman from flying. If a Congressman is traveling to or from Congress, or is flying as a course of Congressional business, they can't be interfered with by anyone other than the Congressional Sergeant at Arms.
Oh, law enforcement most certainly can prevent members of congress from flying or boarding a plane. As mentioned previously, the Scope of Article I Section 6 has been limited civil cases. Williamson v. United States (1908) makes this quite clear. That Breach of the Peace is not narrowly construed, and includes any alleged criminal activity.
And a suspected terrorist link is a criminal matter.
However.. members of the federal government are likely to avoid interfering with members of congress, because they are members of the same social clique --- they also want to appease, not anger members of congress: Members of congress get the red carpet treatment, and bypass long lines at airports, and since congress members can always retaliate by ignoring or voting against them issues they care about, or withdraw their funding, and they have some superior access to the courts to bring actions against any law enforcement officer(s) abusing their rights.......
The police are constitutionally not allowed to arrest a congressman, because if they could, then the executive branch could
They can; a congressman can still be arrested if prosecuted for a crime. Williamson v. United States (1908). The exclusion of congressmen from arrest applies to Civil Arrest only (basically.... incarceration of a defendant being sued in a civil action; detainment of a person by lawful authority at request of the plaintiff in order to answer a civil demand, commonly used against debtors), based on the context of the original English concept of parliamentary privilege, and not other civil processes, and this privilege is only enjoyed while congress is in session.
Civil Arrests are essentially a medieval anachronism no longer done in the united states, although they were used in the 1800s, so the constitutional exclusion from arrest basically has no affect.
The judge in this case, though, will be added to the no-fly list really soon.
Not likely. A federal judge walking around in public has extra powers, by virtue of being a peace officer; not only does a federal judge have the power to quickly write up an order requiring that they be allowed to board the plane, and the ability to issue immediate punitive legal actions for non-compliance, but these judges also have the power to make warrantless arrests under various conditions and are legally allowed to carry sidearms and other law enforcement tools with them, even onboard.
In short: the TSA is not likely to even joke about messing with federal judges.
Who do you think they are, the IRS? :)
Though it does seem the Judicial branch is at least moderately less beholden than the others.
They're not only moderately less beholden. It would be a major ethical scandal worthy of impeachment, for a Justice to be caught discussing their cases/rulings with politicians, lobbyists, or other representatives outside the court: there is an absolute requirement of unbiased objective interpretation of the law exclusively according to the principles of the law.
the ruling changes nothing.
That's not really true. Within the region of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Oregon circuit, the order is in full effect and force immediately.
It may be appealed. In that case, the ruling is still in affect during appeal, unless the feds win a stay, which they only win if they are deemed likely to succeed in the appeal.
The feds could pull off something clever however ---- like: instead of appealing the ruling; they can outsource 'no fly list enforcement' to the discretion of 3rd parties.
For example: for people flying from outside the US into Oregon, well.... it won't be the US No-Fly-List. Everyone flying in will have to be routed in from an approved partner country who has their own fly list, which through international agreement includes all the items in the US no-fly-list.
As for people flying out..... again.... airlines will only be allowed to fly to approved partner countries, and the US will agree not to let anyone board a plane who is in the partner country's No-Fly list.
As for flights from other places in the US to places inside Oregon.... no problem: outside the court's juridsidction, US No-Fly-List still applies.
As for domestic flights from inside Oregon to other places in the US...... well the court ruling didn't fully address it, so no problem enforcing a US No-Fly List there.