The algorithm is a standard, they wouldn't be able to advertise those devices as having AES if they modified it. They also wouldn't be able to sell their phones to the government if they added a backdoor of some sort.
Doubtful, police get edgy whenever they realize that the person they pulled over is a licensed attorney. Their word holds more weight than an officers in court.
Only if it's US Customs/Border Patrol stopping you. And it's 100 miles not 50. I'm actually surprised that this has not been ruled as unconstitutional. That radius also extends from every port of entry, not just the border. So any international airport in the middle of country, far away from our international border, starts that radius again.
In cryptography, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a symmetric-key encryption standard adopted by the U.S. government. The standard comprises three block ciphers, AES-128, AES-192 and AES-256, adopted from a larger collection originally published as Rijndael. Each of these ciphers has a 128-bit block size, with key sizes of 128, 192 and 256 bits, respectively. The AES ciphers have been analyzed extensively and are now used worldwide, as was the case with its predecessor,[3] the Data Encryption Standard (DES).
AES was announced by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as U.S. FIPS PUB 197 (FIPS 197) on November 26, 2001 after a 5-year standardization process in which fifteen competing designs were presented and evaluated before Rijndael was selected as the most suitable (see Advanced Encryption Standard process for more details). It became effective as a Federal government standard on May 26, 2002 after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. It is available in many different encryption packages. AES is the first publicly accessible and open cipher approved by the NSA for top secret information (see Security of AES, below).
And just what PC do they have to remove the phone? It is not illegal, it is not committing a crime. Hell, you can have it on the passengers seat under a newspaper, courts have ruled that if the police have to move something out of the way to reveal something else that it is a search and thus falls under the 4th Amendment.
Yep, the police also have no duty to protect you. Besides, if you have a gun in your face you're not calling the cops. Every person in this country needs to start taking their own safety seriously instead of listening to all the BS the liberals tell you to do when confronted by a criminal.
Plus, just load up the phone with non-incriminating data but just make it revolting or insulting to cops to review it. It's not like the guy who pulled you over is going to sit and review all of your 8gb+ of data, or be expected to.
Load your phone full of mp3's then call the RIAA when the police "pirate" all that music. Problem solved!
That only works if every phone is using the same encryption key, somehow I doubt that is the case. It is more likely that your phone will generate a key when you enable the full device encryption, since this has to be generated when you select a pass phrase.
That could be considered a booby trap by the DA, I wouldn't risk it. You'll especially be in trouble if your device causes injury to any of the officers.
It has already been upheld that police can only search items that are in plain view during a traffic stop absent probable cause. What probable cause would they have to search your phone? Not to mention you can toss it in a glove box and at that point they will need a your permission, a warrant, or to impound the car in order to search it. I really hope the ACLU gives them the smack down in US Supreme Court over this.
Most people do not go after the officers for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority (USC 1983 violation), which leaves them with civil and criminal liability and also bars their unions and departments of the ability to pay their legal fees. If more people would file these lawsuits against officers who violate their rights the practice would end very quickly.
Yep, just like the times they "busted" the "myth" of the USMC sniper shooting another sniper right through his scope. Well this was a confirmed kill from back in the Vietnam War. The man who did this was no other than Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock.
"One of Hathcock's most famous accomplishments was shooting an enemy sniper through the enemy's own scope, hitting him in the eye and killing him.[2] Hathcock and John Roland Burke, his spotter, were stalking the enemy sniper in the jungle near Hill 55, the firebase from which Hathcock was operating. The sniper had already killed several Marines and was believed to have been sent specifically to kill Hathcock.[10] When Hathcock saw a flash of light (light reflecting off the enemy sniper's scope) in the bushes,[2] he fired at it, shooting through the scope and killing the sniper.[5] Surveying the situation, Hathcock concluded that the only feasible way he could have put the bullet straight down the enemy's scope and through his eye would have been if both snipers were zeroing in on each other at the same time and Hathcock fired first, which gave him only a few seconds to act.[10] Given the flight time of rounds at long ranges, both snipers could easily have killed one another.[9] The enemy rifle was recovered and the incident is documented by a photograph."
No, I'm saying that because many of their experiments are flawed and the say "we proved this" when in fact they didn't that their science is flawed. You verify your results in science.
Slashdot Mirror
The algorithm is a standard, they wouldn't be able to advertise those devices as having AES if they modified it. They also wouldn't be able to sell their phones to the government if they added a backdoor of some sort.
Doubtful, police get edgy whenever they realize that the person they pulled over is a licensed attorney. Their word holds more weight than an officers in court.
The ACLU said that it covers 2/3rd of the population. Most of the citizens of the US now live in a "Constitution Free Zone".
http://www.frtv.org/2010/06/constitution-free-zone-border-patrol-security-search-and-seizure-laws/
They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply. Same as you can refuse to allow them to search your car on a whim.
Only if it's US Customs/Border Patrol stopping you. And it's 100 miles not 50. I'm actually surprised that this has not been ruled as unconstitutional. That radius also extends from every port of entry, not just the border. So any international airport in the middle of country, far away from our international border, starts that radius again.
You obviously know nothing about AES. There is a reason the Dept. of Defense mandates its use for classified information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard
In cryptography, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a symmetric-key encryption standard adopted by the U.S. government. The standard comprises three block ciphers, AES-128, AES-192 and AES-256, adopted from a larger collection originally published as Rijndael. Each of these ciphers has a 128-bit block size, with key sizes of 128, 192 and 256 bits, respectively. The AES ciphers have been analyzed extensively and are now used worldwide, as was the case with its predecessor,[3] the Data Encryption Standard (DES).
AES was announced by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as U.S. FIPS PUB 197 (FIPS 197) on November 26, 2001 after a 5-year standardization process in which fifteen competing designs were presented and evaluated before Rijndael was selected as the most suitable (see Advanced Encryption Standard process for more details). It became effective as a Federal government standard on May 26, 2002 after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. It is available in many different encryption packages. AES is the first publicly accessible and open cipher approved by the NSA for top secret information (see Security of AES, below).
Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?
You could easily prove harassment if this started happening, the department can pay that lawsuit off by draining their pension fund.
And just what PC do they have to remove the phone? It is not illegal, it is not committing a crime. Hell, you can have it on the passengers seat under a newspaper, courts have ruled that if the police have to move something out of the way to reveal something else that it is a search and thus falls under the 4th Amendment.
Yep, the police also have no duty to protect you. Besides, if you have a gun in your face you're not calling the cops. Every person in this country needs to start taking their own safety seriously instead of listening to all the BS the liberals tell you to do when confronted by a criminal.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
You numbers are wrong, just look at all the non-Apple smartphones that are on the market. Those also happen to double as portable media players.
Oops, posted the same link twice.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/23/xbox-division-posts-165-million-profit-in-fiscal-q3/
The XBox has been making a profit since before the start of 2008. They even had $165 million in profit for Q3 of last year.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox_delivers_a_profit.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox_delivers_a_profit.html
And lets not forget that while Microsofts profits are falling that the XBox and Kinect profits are growing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/28/microsoft-profits-xbox-kinect
You were saying?
AES-256 has been broken under some circumstances, last I checked AES-128 was considered to be more secure.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/new_attack_on_a.html
Plus, just load up the phone with non-incriminating data but just make it revolting or insulting to cops to review it. It's not like the guy who pulled you over is going to sit and review all of your 8gb+ of data, or be expected to.
Load your phone full of mp3's then call the RIAA when the police "pirate" all that music. Problem solved!
That only works if every phone is using the same encryption key, somehow I doubt that is the case. It is more likely that your phone will generate a key when you enable the full device encryption, since this has to be generated when you select a pass phrase.
That could be considered a booby trap by the DA, I wouldn't risk it. You'll especially be in trouble if your device causes injury to any of the officers.
It has already been upheld that police can only search items that are in plain view during a traffic stop absent probable cause. What probable cause would they have to search your phone? Not to mention you can toss it in a glove box and at that point they will need a your permission, a warrant, or to impound the car in order to search it. I really hope the ACLU gives them the smack down in US Supreme Court over this.
Not to mention that most new phones are using either mini or micro USB jacks.
I thought it was illegal to charge more than actual processing costs when someone files an FOIA?
Most people do not go after the officers for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority (USC 1983 violation), which leaves them with civil and criminal liability and also bars their unions and departments of the ability to pay their legal fees. If more people would file these lawsuits against officers who violate their rights the practice would end very quickly.
Yep, just like the times they "busted" the "myth" of the USMC sniper shooting another sniper right through his scope. Well this was a confirmed kill from back in the Vietnam War. The man who did this was no other than Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Legacy
"One of Hathcock's most famous accomplishments was shooting an enemy sniper through the enemy's own scope, hitting him in the eye and killing him.[2] Hathcock and John Roland Burke, his spotter, were stalking the enemy sniper in the jungle near Hill 55, the firebase from which Hathcock was operating. The sniper had already killed several Marines and was believed to have been sent specifically to kill Hathcock.[10] When Hathcock saw a flash of light (light reflecting off the enemy sniper's scope) in the bushes,[2] he fired at it, shooting through the scope and killing the sniper.[5] Surveying the situation, Hathcock concluded that the only feasible way he could have put the bullet straight down the enemy's scope and through his eye would have been if both snipers were zeroing in on each other at the same time and Hathcock fired first, which gave him only a few seconds to act.[10] Given the flight time of rounds at long ranges, both snipers could easily have killed one another.[9] The enemy rifle was recovered and the incident is documented by a photograph."
No, I'm saying that because many of their experiments are flawed and the say "we proved this" when in fact they didn't that their science is flawed. You verify your results in science.
We've been making these jokes since long before the Iraq war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency#Military_Communications
That problem was solved a long time ago, how do you think subs receive orders while submerged? Extremely low frequency transmissions is how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency#Military_Communications