Lucky '70s kid, in my high school we had no vocational classes of any use, sure you could take shop but that doesn't come close to starting training for a trade. My high school had no auto shop, and does any school have an HVAC class...I seriously asking was that really ever a thing?
I was born at the front edge of GenX and graduated high school in the early 80s. Junior high had wood shop, metal shop, plastic shop, bicycle repair, "electronics" (really just basic circuits) shop, and probably more. High school had a full auto shop, metal shop, and probably more if you were on that track. I don't think there was HVAC, but the other vocational classes probably prepared you well enough for that. I think there was even a home construction class.
Use a probe, measure how far down the hollow part goes. Compare it to the outside of the tube down to the crank, if there's more than 2 cm or so then remove the bike from use for further examination.
There isn't necessarily easy access to the inside of the seat tube without potentially messing up the rider's position from having to remove the seat-- many modern bikes have complicated seat tubes and integrated posts that may make it non-trivial. And even if you can, it's become so easy to make bikes that are well under the 6.8 kg minimum racing weight that I've known many smaller riders who have had to do things like drop a length of chain down their seat tube to bring the bike weight up to the minimum.
Even big motorcycles are hard to see, nevermind a skinny little bike.
You aren't looking around enough. If you're used to looking for bicycles, they're easy to see. If you're used to looking for motorcycles, they're easy to see. Lane sharing by motorcyclists is legal in California, so if you're driving you have to expect that motorcycles are going to come up the apparently non-existent lane between you and the next car. They're easy to see if you actually look.
Not just car-caused pollution, it's also reduced fitness due to less exercise than if you cycled. I haven't checked for recent studies, but the slight increased risk from traffic on a bicycle is more than compensated by improved health and fitness.
You can get most things delivered to your door by self-driving cars..
I think this is already getting close to optimized and isn't going to change much. I already get almost everything delivered to my door by a company that goes so far as to map its routes so there are fewer left turns to save fuel. Somebody still has to get out of the truck and deliver it to my porch. Some things are a lot less cost-effective to ship.
I can get fresh stuff delivered, too, but the limits on that aren't related to the vehicle so much as trusting who's picking them out or whether they'll have to sit out in the sun or where animals can get into them.
So when you walk out of the mall, the next car will pull up a few seconds after you request it. If demand is under predicted, you may wait a few more seconds, but not 10 minutes.
That works until you combine multiple trips where you're picking things up in different places. If you don't have a dedicated vehicle you have to haul all that stuff around. I routinely will take a bicycle or two somewhere, go for a long ride, then stop a few places on the way home for shopping (sometimes bulk). So either I leave the stuff (which can add up to quite a lot) in the car and wait for the car, or I haul it around with me (unworkable). Parking lots local to the shopping work much better for my use case.
I've completely uninstalled Flash from my personal computer and don't miss it at all. My work machine has it because we have internal apps that use it, but I have a little shell script that finds the flash process and kills it if it starts to act like a pig.
I've taken most of my mac laptops apart at least once, usually to replace something with a spindle: a hard drive, a superdrive (super fragile), or a fan. I've taken a few down pretty far to resolder things like a power connector on an iBook.
I have neighbors in SoCal who have bills higher than that in the summer. They apparently run their air conditioners full blast. I pay about $60 in the summer because I don't have AC and my house (built in the 50s) is designed to stay cool even when it's over 100F out.
Or in an alternative version of the future, autonomous cars mean there are *more* cars on the road and it still takes about the same amount of time to get from point A to point B as it does now, it's just that the autonomy and networking enable the same roads to carry more traffic. The barrier to driving for many trips will be lower since the driver won't have to consider the stress of traffic as a reason not to go, and the cost of autonomous cars will be about the same relative to incomes as cars cost now.
Your vision is for very specific use cases and most likely is overlooking a lot of use cases that will push things in the opposite direction from what you imagine. Southern California is already a counterexample to your "only allow autonomous cars in the city". There is no central location that everyone commutes to from outlying burbs. It's a giant network of people with crisscrossing commutes and various bottlenecks, but DTLA isn't really that much of a central commute target, though it is a commute bottleneck.
All of the major ebookstores (including amazon, kobo, apple, google, and overdrive) let the publisher determine whether their titles will be sold with or without DRM. Amazon is the only one that won't let a publisher switch a title from DRM to DRM-free after release. I run a small publishing house and we bought the catalog of another publisher that wanted to retire. They were big on DRM, we're very much not-- the coffee you drink while reading the book will cost you more than most of our titles, so we trust people to go the easy way and just pay $3-5 at a store. All the bookstores except amazon let us just give them instructions to switch all the titles to DRM-free, so all our new titles are DRM-free everywhere, but the old ones from the imprint we bought are DRM-free everywhere except Amazon. We also sell via our own online store and offer three formats for most titles (epub, mobi, and pdf), let you download all three, and explicitly let you format shift if something new comes out (not like we could stop you).
All active duty military and civilian employees of DOD. I.e. Anybody who has a CAC. The equivalent PIV-II badges from other agencies don't get you precheck.
The real thing to evaluate is those costs against the costs of pavement to move the equivalent number of people at the same speed through the Bay Area, which in my experience has traffic at least as bad as LA, and often worse. If you supplied the transportation infrastructure via adding more roads and/or lanes, you'd be paying half the cost of it through non-gas taxes. Gas taxes only cover about half the cost of operating the road system, and the rest comes from general funds.
However, there is a key that is used to *sign the binaries*. If the FBI subpoenas that, they could sign their own binary that does what they want- including disabling the 10 attempt limit , allowing key entries from other than the touch pad, and removing the delay between attempts.
Once they had that binary built, signed, and installed on the phone they can brute force the encryption - exactly what they've stated they intend to do.
...
Arguing that they shouldn't surrender something they have already created is (I believe) a much weaker argument.
That would most likely be fought under as a violation of their 5th amendment rights " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.". Given the value of the signing key (based on the corporate value of Apple the corporation that would be severely harmed as a result), the government probably doesn't have that kind of cash lying around.
Apple is very much a disinterested 3rd party in all this.
As an information services provider (iCloud) they promptly replied to all of DOJs requests for assistance and information, providing what was available in the iCloud account when it was requested.
As a device manufacturer, their obligation ended when the device left the store. The device and the information on it belong to SB County. SB County can (and has) turned it over to the FBI and said go ahead and get what you can off it. Apple has, in the past, provided services for law enforcement to do that when it was part of what they already did to repair and/or recover phones. They're being told to provide a service that's outside the scope of what they do as a company, even internally for diagnostics (why the pen register argument doesn't apply). Apple don't own the device, and while they license the software that's on it, that license amounts to "you can't copy this". The Federal Gov't is free to use their own vast resources to get information off the phone without interference or help from Apple.
For the government to demand the signing key, when Apple hasn't committed a crime and the signing key is itself not something that was used in the crime, amounts to an act of eminent domain. That's got a whole different set of standards, and the signing key could be determined to be extremely valuable to Apple (as in able to cause a substantial drop in the value of one of the highest valued companies in the world). They'd bring out a whole different set of really good lawyers for that one, and win easily.
The capability to create it already exists at Apple and so if they do make it, use it for this case and destroy it afterwards, you just end up back at the start, where the capability to create it exists and they are no more or less likely to be coerced into doing it by any other party.
That shows a profound misunderstanding of how the US legal system works. Once they've done it, then the probability of them being coerced again is identically 1. If the gov't is allowed to compel them to produce software, and especially produce particular features, then the government can: a) repeatedly compel them to recreate the software to crack existing phones that can be cracked by that method. Then apple effectively has to either maintain a team to keep recreating and destroying the software (good luck hiring people who want that job. seriously tiresome) or keep the software intact and protect it. But they can't do that, because once it gets used in an actual criminal prosecution then the defendant will have the right to see the software. And every defendant it's used against will have that right. So then it's out. b) compel them to create a permanent backdoor in all future versions (the precedent for government compulsion of particular features having been established, despite CALEA's wording to the contrary. And they can do it secretly through the FISA court, and it will be 5-10 years before we hear about it publicly. In the meantime, people will find the holes and exploit them (aside from NSA and FBI exploting them).
The technical possibility of that particular phone being hackable by sideloading a custom system is almost irrelevant to the case. It's the legal precedent that's important.
This is VERY useful in one specific way. If a Federal judge in California rules differently and upholds the California lower judges order to Apple then there is almost a 100% guarantee that an appeal must be heard by the Supreme Court.
The district judge (who is a federal judge) in California can still rescind the order based on Apple's filing. If she does, then it will depend on whether DOJ decides to appeal one or both of the cases.
Apple is also making first amendment arguments: code has been ruled to speech, speech can not be compelled by the government, corporations are protected by the first amendment.
It doesn't look like they made that argument in NY, or the order would probably have addressed it. The phone in the NY case runs iOS 7, which doesn't require them to produce new tools to get the information off of.
The All Writs Act is an unconstitutional law. The fact that it has stood for more than 200 years since the bill of rights just proves how rare this magistrate is.
We don't need a law to give judges power to fill in gaps in the law. As far as the federal government is concerned, the law is explicit.
The AWA doesn't appear on its face to be unconstitutional, just the application of it that the DOJ was asking for. Orenstein's order gives a nice history, pointing out that the AWA was passed by the first congress that included many of the writers of the constitution and many of the state delegates who voted to ratify it. It's intended as something of a judicial lubricant so that the legislative branch doesn't have to enumerate every possible case of every possible thing. It is, however, limited and shouldn't be used to address things that are really the business of the legislature (i.e. Congress). The order even highlights how at the same time that the request for an ex parte order was being filed in his court, Comey was publicly announcing that the FBI wasn't going to pursue changes to CALEA and that this was a transparent attempt to bypass the legislative process. He then goes on to more or less agree with you that AWA can't be used for all the things that I cut out of the rest of your quote.
The judge actually lays it out pretty well in the order.
DOJ went to the court to have them issue a writ to order Apple to break into the phone around when the guy in NY was charged. They did this because they thought it had evidence that would be useful in getting a conviction. The guy later plead guilty, which you might think would render the writ moot, but DOJ wanted to continue investigating to see if there was data on the phone to implicate collaborators of the guy who plead guilty. The courts normally defer to the discretion of the investigators and say "yes, while it looks moot, I understand you want to do a thorough investigation and see if there's evidence of criminal behavior of other people, so I'll go ahead and approve this writ". So far so good. Judge Orenstein even explains it more or less that way.
Until Apple say's "hey, this is putting a burden on us, and we're not a party to any of it, and we're not in the software breaking business. We don't even have tools to break our own after OS7, and while we've previously cooperated a few dozen times on earlier OS versions, this is getting to be both a lot of work and y'all are starting to ask us to make things from scratch that we think are dangerous to make even once. We think you're pushing this AWA thing too far, and here's why." (and they submit their briefs)
The judge reads it all, has hearings, etc and then says "Yes, Apple, you're correct, the AWA doesn't give me the authority to order you to do what DOJ asks, and all these other laws and precedents back them up, too. Have a nice day. DOJ, you guys are way overreaching, and your attempts to bypass the legislative process are transparent. You lose this way, and that way, and this other way, too. None of your arguments claiming I have that authority are any good. Go away. kthxbye."
And then the DOJ has the option to appeal to the circuit court, but they'll probably wait to see what they get in California. If they lose about the same way in both places, they might back off. If they get conflicting orders, they'll probably appeal the one they don't like and try to get an appellate court to agree with them, but Apple will be doing the same thing with the order that *they* don't like. If two circuits then come up with different resolutions to the interpretation of the AWA (or other law in the case) then the supreme court will probably take it when it gets appealed to there.
Slashdot Mirror
Lucky '70s kid, in my high school we had no vocational classes of any use, sure you could take shop but that doesn't come close to starting training for a trade. My high school had no auto shop, and does any school have an HVAC class...I seriously asking was that really ever a thing?
I was born at the front edge of GenX and graduated high school in the early 80s. Junior high had wood shop, metal shop, plastic shop, bicycle repair, "electronics" (really just basic circuits) shop, and probably more. High school had a full auto shop, metal shop, and probably more if you were on that track. I don't think there was HVAC, but the other vocational classes probably prepared you well enough for that. I think there was even a home construction class.
I'm in the leading edge of GenX and the world population hit 4e9 when I was in grade school and hit 5e9 in my early 20's.
Use a probe, measure how far down the hollow part goes. Compare it to the outside of the tube down to the crank, if there's more than 2 cm or so then remove the bike from use for further examination.
There isn't necessarily easy access to the inside of the seat tube without potentially messing up the rider's position from having to remove the seat-- many modern bikes have complicated seat tubes and integrated posts that may make it non-trivial. And even if you can, it's become so easy to make bikes that are well under the 6.8 kg minimum racing weight that I've known many smaller riders who have had to do things like drop a length of chain down their seat tube to bring the bike weight up to the minimum.
Even big motorcycles are hard to see, nevermind a skinny little bike.
You aren't looking around enough. If you're used to looking for bicycles, they're easy to see. If you're used to looking for motorcycles, they're easy to see. Lane sharing by motorcyclists is legal in California, so if you're driving you have to expect that motorcycles are going to come up the apparently non-existent lane between you and the next car. They're easy to see if you actually look.
Not just car-caused pollution, it's also reduced fitness due to less exercise than if you cycled. I haven't checked for recent studies, but the slight increased risk from traffic on a bicycle is more than compensated by improved health and fitness.
You can get most things delivered to your door by self-driving cars..
I think this is already getting close to optimized and isn't going to change much. I already get almost everything delivered to my door by a company that goes so far as to map its routes so there are fewer left turns to save fuel. Somebody still has to get out of the truck and deliver it to my porch. Some things are a lot less cost-effective to ship.
I can get fresh stuff delivered, too, but the limits on that aren't related to the vehicle so much as trusting who's picking them out or whether they'll have to sit out in the sun or where animals can get into them.
So when you walk out of the mall, the next car will pull up a few seconds after you request it. If demand is under predicted, you may wait a few more seconds, but not 10 minutes.
That works until you combine multiple trips where you're picking things up in different places. If you don't have a dedicated vehicle you have to haul all that stuff around. I routinely will take a bicycle or two somewhere, go for a long ride, then stop a few places on the way home for shopping (sometimes bulk). So either I leave the stuff (which can add up to quite a lot) in the car and wait for the car, or I haul it around with me (unworkable). Parking lots local to the shopping work much better for my use case.
I've completely uninstalled Flash from my personal computer and don't miss it at all. My work machine has it because we have internal apps that use it, but I have a little shell script that finds the flash process and kills it if it starts to act like a pig.
I've taken most of my mac laptops apart at least once, usually to replace something with a spindle: a hard drive, a superdrive (super fragile), or a fan. I've taken a few down pretty far to resolder things like a power connector on an iBook.
I can explain it.
Renewable energy is variable - you can't rely on it being there when you need it.
Some is, some isn't. Hydro-Quebec generates 99.8% of its energy from water.
I have neighbors in SoCal who have bills higher than that in the summer. They apparently run their air conditioners full blast. I pay about $60 in the summer because I don't have AC and my house (built in the 50s) is designed to stay cool even when it's over 100F out.
Or in an alternative version of the future, autonomous cars mean there are *more* cars on the road and it still takes about the same amount of time to get from point A to point B as it does now, it's just that the autonomy and networking enable the same roads to carry more traffic. The barrier to driving for many trips will be lower since the driver won't have to consider the stress of traffic as a reason not to go, and the cost of autonomous cars will be about the same relative to incomes as cars cost now.
Your vision is for very specific use cases and most likely is overlooking a lot of use cases that will push things in the opposite direction from what you imagine. Southern California is already a counterexample to your "only allow autonomous cars in the city". There is no central location that everyone commutes to from outlying burbs. It's a giant network of people with crisscrossing commutes and various bottlenecks, but DTLA isn't really that much of a central commute target, though it is a commute bottleneck.
All of the major ebookstores (including amazon, kobo, apple, google, and overdrive) let the publisher determine whether their titles will be sold with or without DRM. Amazon is the only one that won't let a publisher switch a title from DRM to DRM-free after release. I run a small publishing house and we bought the catalog of another publisher that wanted to retire. They were big on DRM, we're very much not-- the coffee you drink while reading the book will cost you more than most of our titles, so we trust people to go the easy way and just pay $3-5 at a store. All the bookstores except amazon let us just give them instructions to switch all the titles to DRM-free, so all our new titles are DRM-free everywhere, but the old ones from the imprint we bought are DRM-free everywhere except Amazon. We also sell via our own online store and offer three formats for most titles (epub, mobi, and pdf), let you download all three, and explicitly let you format shift if something new comes out (not like we could stop you).
If you have free will you don't need to worry about it, and if you don't there's nothing you can do about it.
Page charges predate open access publishing by at least decades, so in some cases the publishers are getting paid by both the authors and the readers.
All active duty military and civilian employees of DOD. I.e. Anybody who has a CAC. The equivalent PIV-II badges from other agencies don't get you precheck.
Only actual decisions are precedent, not cases that never made it to judgement.
Precedent is set in the appellate courts. The one court order creates no precedent.
The real thing to evaluate is those costs against the costs of pavement to move the equivalent number of people at the same speed through the Bay Area, which in my experience has traffic at least as bad as LA, and often worse. If you supplied the transportation infrastructure via adding more roads and/or lanes, you'd be paying half the cost of it through non-gas taxes. Gas taxes only cover about half the cost of operating the road system, and the rest comes from general funds.
However, there is a key that is used to *sign the binaries*. If the FBI subpoenas that, they could sign their own binary that does what they want- including disabling the 10 attempt limit , allowing key entries from other than the touch pad, and removing the delay between attempts.
Once they had that binary built, signed, and installed on the phone they can brute force the encryption - exactly what they've stated they intend to do.
Arguing that they shouldn't surrender something they have already created is (I believe) a much weaker argument.
That would most likely be fought under as a violation of their 5th amendment rights " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.". Given the value of the signing key (based on the corporate value of Apple the corporation that would be severely harmed as a result), the government probably doesn't have that kind of cash lying around.
Apple is very much a disinterested 3rd party in all this.
As an information services provider (iCloud) they promptly replied to all of DOJs requests for assistance and information, providing what was available in the iCloud account when it was requested.
As a device manufacturer, their obligation ended when the device left the store. The device and the information on it belong to SB County. SB County can (and has) turned it over to the FBI and said go ahead and get what you can off it. Apple has, in the past, provided services for law enforcement to do that when it was part of what they already did to repair and/or recover phones. They're being told to provide a service that's outside the scope of what they do as a company, even internally for diagnostics (why the pen register argument doesn't apply). Apple don't own the device, and while they license the software that's on it, that license amounts to "you can't copy this". The Federal Gov't is free to use their own vast resources to get information off the phone without interference or help from Apple.
For the government to demand the signing key, when Apple hasn't committed a crime and the signing key is itself not something that was used in the crime, amounts to an act of eminent domain. That's got a whole different set of standards, and the signing key could be determined to be extremely valuable to Apple (as in able to cause a substantial drop in the value of one of the highest valued companies in the world). They'd bring out a whole different set of really good lawyers for that one, and win easily.
The capability to create it already exists at Apple and so if they do make it, use it for this case and destroy it afterwards, you just end up back at the start, where the capability to create it exists and they are no more or less likely to be coerced into doing it by any other party.
That shows a profound misunderstanding of how the US legal system works. Once they've done it, then the probability of them being coerced again is identically 1. If the gov't is allowed to compel them to produce software, and especially produce particular features, then the government can:
a) repeatedly compel them to recreate the software to crack existing phones that can be cracked by that method. Then apple effectively has to either maintain a team to keep recreating and destroying the software (good luck hiring people who want that job. seriously tiresome) or keep the software intact and protect it. But they can't do that, because once it gets used in an actual criminal prosecution then the defendant will have the right to see the software. And every defendant it's used against will have that right. So then it's out.
b) compel them to create a permanent backdoor in all future versions (the precedent for government compulsion of particular features having been established, despite CALEA's wording to the contrary. And they can do it secretly through the FISA court, and it will be 5-10 years before we hear about it publicly. In the meantime, people will find the holes and exploit them (aside from NSA and FBI exploting them).
The technical possibility of that particular phone being hackable by sideloading a custom system is almost irrelevant to the case. It's the legal precedent that's important.
read my post carefully.
the DOJ thinks the AWA gives the judge the authority. The judge explained that he thinks he doesn't have the authority to issue a writ in this case.
somebody just pointed me at ODROID systems, too (Ameridroid in the US). The XU-4 has Gig-E and is less than $100.
This is VERY useful in one specific way. If a Federal judge in California rules differently and upholds the California lower judges order to Apple then there is almost a 100% guarantee that an appeal must be heard by the Supreme Court.
The district judge (who is a federal judge) in California can still rescind the order based on Apple's filing. If she does, then it will depend on whether DOJ decides to appeal one or both of the cases.
Apple is also making first amendment arguments: code has been ruled to speech, speech can not be compelled by the government, corporations are protected by the first amendment.
It doesn't look like they made that argument in NY, or the order would probably have addressed it. The phone in the NY case runs iOS 7, which doesn't require them to produce new tools to get the information off of.
The All Writs Act is an unconstitutional law. The fact that it has stood for more than 200 years since the bill of rights just proves how rare this magistrate is.
We don't need a law to give judges power to fill in gaps in the law. As far as the federal government is concerned, the law is explicit.
The AWA doesn't appear on its face to be unconstitutional, just the application of it that the DOJ was asking for. Orenstein's order gives a nice history, pointing out that the AWA was passed by the first congress that included many of the writers of the constitution and many of the state delegates who voted to ratify it. It's intended as something of a judicial lubricant so that the legislative branch doesn't have to enumerate every possible case of every possible thing. It is, however, limited and shouldn't be used to address things that are really the business of the legislature (i.e. Congress). The order even highlights how at the same time that the request for an ex parte order was being filed in his court, Comey was publicly announcing that the FBI wasn't going to pursue changes to CALEA and that this was a transparent attempt to bypass the legislative process. He then goes on to more or less agree with you that AWA can't be used for all the things that I cut out of the rest of your quote.
The judge actually lays it out pretty well in the order.
DOJ went to the court to have them issue a writ to order Apple to break into the phone around when the guy in NY was charged. They did this because they thought it had evidence that would be useful in getting a conviction. The guy later plead guilty, which you might think would render the writ moot, but DOJ wanted to continue investigating to see if there was data on the phone to implicate collaborators of the guy who plead guilty. The courts normally defer to the discretion of the investigators and say "yes, while it looks moot, I understand you want to do a thorough investigation and see if there's evidence of criminal behavior of other people, so I'll go ahead and approve this writ". So far so good. Judge Orenstein even explains it more or less that way.
Until Apple say's "hey, this is putting a burden on us, and we're not a party to any of it, and we're not in the software breaking business. We don't even have tools to break our own after OS7, and while we've previously cooperated a few dozen times on earlier OS versions, this is getting to be both a lot of work and y'all are starting to ask us to make things from scratch that we think are dangerous to make even once. We think you're pushing this AWA thing too far, and here's why." (and they submit their briefs)
The judge reads it all, has hearings, etc and then says "Yes, Apple, you're correct, the AWA doesn't give me the authority to order you to do what DOJ asks, and all these other laws and precedents back them up, too. Have a nice day. DOJ, you guys are way overreaching, and your attempts to bypass the legislative process are transparent. You lose this way, and that way, and this other way, too. None of your arguments claiming I have that authority are any good. Go away. kthxbye."
And then the DOJ has the option to appeal to the circuit court, but they'll probably wait to see what they get in California. If they lose about the same way in both places, they might back off. If they get conflicting orders, they'll probably appeal the one they don't like and try to get an appellate court to agree with them, but Apple will be doing the same thing with the order that *they* don't like. If two circuits then come up with different resolutions to the interpretation of the AWA (or other law in the case) then the supreme court will probably take it when it gets appealed to there.