The iPhone's encryption can be compromised with physical access, but again that's a far more significant breach of privacy and would seem to me to require a warrant.
This case deals specifically with physical access to a device without a warrant. All that is required is that you be arrested, and your car can usually be searched incident to your arrest. If the car is being impounded, it can always be searched.
If they can peruse it legally once they have physical access to it, they can certainly legally attach a UFED device to it. Oh, and those can trivially break iOS encryption routines, so the only safe way to protect your data (if this concerns you) is to use something other than an iDevice.
At least according to their publicly available documentation, the only encrypted devices they can pwn are iPhone devices. Whether that's actually true or not.
Yup. Government, pretty much everywhere, has almost always been completely fucked. The times when it was not are very few. Granted, there's a lot of variation and degree amongst the fuckedness of governments throughout history.
In disagreeing with the post above yours, it appears you're arguing that laws should be able to be re-interpreted after being passed (Write law B, pass it, then treat it as if it's law A would be what it appears you're advocating by disagreeing). Is that actually what you meant to say?
Unfortunately, Roberts has drastically reduced the number of cases the court hears in a year, and those chosen haven't ended up very well in terms of individual rights protections.
Interesting. Reading through the current release notes, the device apparently can decrypt not only the access password for iOS 4, but also every other password stored on the device as well.
If it can decrypt any other devices, they don't mention it anywhere on the site that I could find. They're pretty open about the features too, at least in models not targeted at intelligence agencies.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if the search was illegal the results are admissible so long as the officer believed they were following the law (or lies to claim they reasonably believed to be complying with the law). I don't have the citation handy, but it was one published in the last several years, since the elevation of Alito and Roberts to the court.
It's also funny how many people are decrying "progressives" as the root behind these decisions, when both sides have cooperated a great deal in eroding these particular rights. Not that I'm a fan of progressives, just not a fan of blatant hypocrisy and reconstruction of history.
When you are arrested and the car is to be impounded, they don't need your consent. Additionally, there's absolutely nothing you can do to physically prevent them from searching it.
The only solution is to encrypt your phone with a passkey and have a login attempt limit set on it.
I'm pretty much in agreement with all that. I think the disagreement is between "have" and "get." It's practical to have and use such a system. The problem, as you outlined above, is actually getting there. Politics, economics, culture, and technology all have hurdles that need to be overcome, and that's why I consider it to be impractical. Once critical mass of EVs is reached, it may become practical to overcome the issues regarding quickly and cheaply storing and replacing thousands of pounds and several cubic feet of material per customer, per day, per location. Even with standardization, the capital expenditures required to support mass market rollout will be incredibly large. The only analogues to that sort of infrastructure building are projects on the order of the construction of the national electric grid or the interstate highway system.
Personally, I live in an area with little to no imported coal power, but the majority of the US cannot say the same.
Most of the comments were stated in such a way that it appears they were taking issue with the idea of machinery being impractical in a more general way. I did not mean, nor is it implied in my statement, that machinery is impractical when taken by itself. Given the way vehicle culture operates in the USA, from manufacturers down to consumers, the standardization itself required among manufacturers is highly impractical. That, in turn, makes the application of replacement machinery impractical to implement for mass markets. This is much the same idea as if each manufacturer implemented their own version of the gas nozzle. Even were that the case, multiple standards for that would be easier to implement than the form factor, interconnect, and accessibility standards that would be required for physical replacement.
There was one anonymous comment regarding electrolyte replacement in batteries where (presumably, since I have not yet pursued the topic past the article linked) there is little or no degradation of the physical structure of the battery over the course of multitudes of replacements. So far, that is the only one which has even come close to addressing the problem of practicality. As long as the replacement requires moving an enormous amount of mass and volume, replacement will be impractical. As I said before in one of my earlier comments: cheap or easy; choose one. If you have examples that are both cheap and easy, including capital investiture for the infrastructure and top-down changes to manufacturing and buying demands, please share.
Nothing you've said has provided proof to refute what I stated. If you have examples, please provide. I'm always interested in learning more if there are gaps in my knowledge. Having a starting point provided from someone who is aware of it already is usually much simpler than spending the time to re-find that starting point. If it requires standardization of form factor and interconnection, I'm not really interested. Practicality doesn't just include technical practicality. Overcoming cultural inertia can be just as impractical. The difficulty should be weighed in terms of whether there is enough benefit from burning coal (which is where the majority of the electricity to charge them actually comes from in the US) in your EV, versus burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine.
I believe unrtst was referring to the trip from the external opening on the car to the opening in the fuel tank being the "gravity fed" mechanism.
The rest is pretty spot-on. It seems like many who are interested in engineering conflate "feasible" and "practical." Yeah, it's cool to do a lot of things that are feasible, but that doesn't make them practical.
Most of the complaints here are as amusing as the ones you get when you mention EVs are almost universally coal-powered (at least in the USA).
This is a much more practical approach. The resistance is also exactly as you stated: old habits die hard.
The culture in the US is very much opposed to anything that requires you to wait though, unless you're in a rural area. There is very little tolerance in urban areas for any sort of delay, at least among the mainstream, car-driving public.
It's funny you have to couple an informative link with the behavior of an asshole. I suppose that's why you post anonymously though.
I have no problem with non-liquid storage mechanisms, but let's not let what I actually said get in the way of what you'd like to represent that I said. That wouldn't make things any fun, now would it?
You posted a great link. You're also apparently a dick. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are points of technology I've missed. I bet there are things you aren't aware of too. I guess that means, according to your own definition, you're not actually interested in technology either. In fact, nobody is interested in technology, because they obviously aren't aware of everything.
I said this particular suggestion, given current technology, is impractical.
With new technology that isn't even on the horizon yet (at least not publicly), it may become practical. A hypothetical tomorrow that nobody has the slightest idea of how to realistically get to doesn't really fill the bill for a solution to problems today.
Any swap that isn't part of a contractual program will remain both infeasible and impractical until batteries exist that do not wear out or where the cost and ease of refurbishing or recycling worn batteries is much smaller than their replacement value. None of those things are true with current battery technologies, nor are they likely to be true in the near future (barring some amazing, out-of-left-field discovery that allows high energy potential and low cost and complexity).
The technology exists, but it is either cheap or easy, not both. The sticking point is that, for a consumer application, it absolutely must be both.
It was stated that it's feasible. It's just not practical or cheap, both of which are necessary in any end-user, non-professional application that's not limited to a tiny niche application.
Only if you can engineer the batteries to be light enough that a single person can move an entire array of them. Even the highest-performance battery packs that are capable of being engineered today, in enough quantity to reasonably power a vehicle, weighs many times more than an individual can lift absent machinery or disconnecting each member unit individually. Neither of those are practical.
The same can be said of a pit crew (regarding practicality). The cases where the expense is justified are extremely limited.
If you were racing these in the same environment a pit crew works in, you can bet they'd have the machinery available to swap out the power storage in seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone's encryption can be compromised with physical access, but again that's a far more significant breach of privacy and would seem to me to require a warrant.
This case deals specifically with physical access to a device without a warrant. All that is required is that you be arrested, and your car can usually be searched incident to your arrest. If the car is being impounded, it can always be searched.
If they can peruse it legally once they have physical access to it, they can certainly legally attach a UFED device to it. Oh, and those can trivially break iOS encryption routines, so the only safe way to protect your data (if this concerns you) is to use something other than an iDevice.
Err, that should have read "iOS devices."
At least according to their publicly available documentation, the only encrypted devices they can pwn are iPhone devices. Whether that's actually true or not.
Common law is incredibly important, but has never in its history been completely binding. In theory, maybe. In practice, not a chance in hell.
Yup. Government, pretty much everywhere, has almost always been completely fucked. The times when it was not are very few. Granted, there's a lot of variation and degree amongst the fuckedness of governments throughout history.
In disagreeing with the post above yours, it appears you're arguing that laws should be able to be re-interpreted after being passed (Write law B, pass it, then treat it as if it's law A would be what it appears you're advocating by disagreeing). Is that actually what you meant to say?
Unfortunately, Roberts has drastically reduced the number of cases the court hears in a year, and those chosen haven't ended up very well in terms of individual rights protections.
Interesting. Reading through the current release notes, the device apparently can decrypt not only the access password for iOS 4, but also every other password stored on the device as well.
If it can decrypt any other devices, they don't mention it anywhere on the site that I could find. They're pretty open about the features too, at least in models not targeted at intelligence agencies.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if the search was illegal the results are admissible so long as the officer believed they were following the law (or lies to claim they reasonably believed to be complying with the law). I don't have the citation handy, but it was one published in the last several years, since the elevation of Alito and Roberts to the court.
It's also funny how many people are decrying "progressives" as the root behind these decisions, when both sides have cooperated a great deal in eroding these particular rights. Not that I'm a fan of progressives, just not a fan of blatant hypocrisy and reconstruction of history.
When you are arrested and the car is to be impounded, they don't need your consent. Additionally, there's absolutely nothing you can do to physically prevent them from searching it.
The only solution is to encrypt your phone with a passkey and have a login attempt limit set on it.
Jobs is Lawnmower Man?
Maybe they'll raise him from the dead and we'll have Lich King Jobs at Apple's helm for the next thousand years.
Two of the 3 posting methods in the preferences do not require HTML for newlines.
I'm pretty much in agreement with all that. I think the disagreement is between "have" and "get." It's practical to have and use such a system. The problem, as you outlined above, is actually getting there. Politics, economics, culture, and technology all have hurdles that need to be overcome, and that's why I consider it to be impractical. Once critical mass of EVs is reached, it may become practical to overcome the issues regarding quickly and cheaply storing and replacing thousands of pounds and several cubic feet of material per customer, per day, per location. Even with standardization, the capital expenditures required to support mass market rollout will be incredibly large. The only analogues to that sort of infrastructure building are projects on the order of the construction of the national electric grid or the interstate highway system.
Personally, I live in an area with little to no imported coal power, but the majority of the US cannot say the same.
Most of the comments were stated in such a way that it appears they were taking issue with the idea of machinery being impractical in a more general way. I did not mean, nor is it implied in my statement, that machinery is impractical when taken by itself. Given the way vehicle culture operates in the USA, from manufacturers down to consumers, the standardization itself required among manufacturers is highly impractical. That, in turn, makes the application of replacement machinery impractical to implement for mass markets. This is much the same idea as if each manufacturer implemented their own version of the gas nozzle. Even were that the case, multiple standards for that would be easier to implement than the form factor, interconnect, and accessibility standards that would be required for physical replacement.
There was one anonymous comment regarding electrolyte replacement in batteries where (presumably, since I have not yet pursued the topic past the article linked) there is little or no degradation of the physical structure of the battery over the course of multitudes of replacements. So far, that is the only one which has even come close to addressing the problem of practicality. As long as the replacement requires moving an enormous amount of mass and volume, replacement will be impractical. As I said before in one of my earlier comments: cheap or easy; choose one. If you have examples that are both cheap and easy, including capital investiture for the infrastructure and top-down changes to manufacturing and buying demands, please share.
Nothing you've said has provided proof to refute what I stated. If you have examples, please provide. I'm always interested in learning more if there are gaps in my knowledge. Having a starting point provided from someone who is aware of it already is usually much simpler than spending the time to re-find that starting point. If it requires standardization of form factor and interconnection, I'm not really interested. Practicality doesn't just include technical practicality. Overcoming cultural inertia can be just as impractical. The difficulty should be weighed in terms of whether there is enough benefit from burning coal (which is where the majority of the electricity to charge them actually comes from in the US) in your EV, versus burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine.
Yes, they may, but only if it's collective. We can't be having individual rights now, that would make some people uncomfortable.
I believe unrtst was referring to the trip from the external opening on the car to the opening in the fuel tank being the "gravity fed" mechanism.
The rest is pretty spot-on. It seems like many who are interested in engineering conflate "feasible" and "practical." Yeah, it's cool to do a lot of things that are feasible, but that doesn't make them practical.
Most of the complaints here are as amusing as the ones you get when you mention EVs are almost universally coal-powered (at least in the USA).
Yes, focusing on the simplest part of the equation and implying that the rest of it is irrelevant or just as easy.
Getting into space is cheap and practical too! All you have to do is mount an engine on a cylindrical object!
This is a much more practical approach. The resistance is also exactly as you stated: old habits die hard.
The culture in the US is very much opposed to anything that requires you to wait though, unless you're in a rural area. There is very little tolerance in urban areas for any sort of delay, at least among the mainstream, car-driving public.
It's funny you have to couple an informative link with the behavior of an asshole. I suppose that's why you post anonymously though.
I have no problem with non-liquid storage mechanisms, but let's not let what I actually said get in the way of what you'd like to represent that I said. That wouldn't make things any fun, now would it?
You posted a great link. You're also apparently a dick. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are points of technology I've missed. I bet there are things you aren't aware of too. I guess that means, according to your own definition, you're not actually interested in technology either. In fact, nobody is interested in technology, because they obviously aren't aware of everything.
Nowhere did I state machinery was impractical.
I said this particular suggestion, given current technology, is impractical.
With new technology that isn't even on the horizon yet (at least not publicly), it may become practical. A hypothetical tomorrow that nobody has the slightest idea of how to realistically get to doesn't really fill the bill for a solution to problems today.
Any swap that isn't part of a contractual program will remain both infeasible and impractical until batteries exist that do not wear out or where the cost and ease of refurbishing or recycling worn batteries is much smaller than their replacement value. None of those things are true with current battery technologies, nor are they likely to be true in the near future (barring some amazing, out-of-left-field discovery that allows high energy potential and low cost and complexity).
The technology exists, but it is either cheap or easy, not both. The sticking point is that, for a consumer application, it absolutely must be both.
It was stated that it's feasible. It's just not practical or cheap, both of which are necessary in any end-user, non-professional application that's not limited to a tiny niche application.
Only if you can engineer the batteries to be light enough that a single person can move an entire array of them. Even the highest-performance battery packs that are capable of being engineered today, in enough quantity to reasonably power a vehicle, weighs many times more than an individual can lift absent machinery or disconnecting each member unit individually. Neither of those are practical.
The same can be said of a pit crew (regarding practicality). The cases where the expense is justified are extremely limited.
If you were racing these in the same environment a pit crew works in, you can bet they'd have the machinery available to swap out the power storage in seconds.
Given how corrupt Italian politics are, what makes you think voting will actually change anything, regardless of what the actual vote results are?