I envisage that in the not too distant future that there might be one place that is fully available that the US Govt (and others) other than by an act of aggression will NOT be able to interfere with and where treaties are not available.
Where? Don't laugh... Space.
The Lagrange points instantly come to mind.. Or even better a standard Heliocentric Orbit with a few backups at different places. (or even orbits around Mars/Venus)
With the physical size of datastorage becoming less and less and the actual virtual capacity becoming more and more the ability to send a email server into space is becoming more and more economically viable, also they could be one usage email centers.. Once read instantly deleted. Or deleted if not read after a certain amount of time. And attachments if allowed minimal sizing (under 500mb would be best to start and would mitigate the 'pirating' of movies)
The only way the US Govt or other LEO's could access it is basically on the ground. OR blow the things up (which might not sit well with 95% of the populace) and since they would be one time encryption structures a standard ONE ITS ALL encryption keys would NOT WORK! [think one time pads for a bit of historical usage]
I am going to assume that Steele was dismissed as a witness before the lunch recess which is his reason for not being able to give testimony on himself searching for Lutz.
Though one has to question why he would not still be in the courtroom in the gallery since the case has high relevance to himself and any further witness statements by anyone would be in his best interest to hear them first hand.
Though this is going on the assumption that Steele is a reasonable person with common sense and an ounce of self preservation NOT bordering on the narcissistic. o_O
I think you would be amazed how often .make is still actually used nowadays for all backend software (not just kernels) by enterprise users. Just because the PC world uses ubuntu et.al and its KISS software installations doesn't mean the actual orgs that rely on *nix for major use don't compile directly from source.
Julian told me his graduate work had been funded by a US government grant, specifically NSA and DARPA money
He was doing a B.SC (Bachelor of Science) Degree that he never completed at Uni of Melbourne, and then attempted another course in Programming (Computer Science Degree strain) at CQU (Central Queensland Uni)... DARPA were not funding anything within Australia, though the CSIRO and our Dept of Defence (Signals) "might" of been at the time it was specifically NOT the USA.
Julian likes to over exaggerate things and thats an understatement.
Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
All those defenses such as sovereign immunity, et.al have allready been tried by the NZ Govt and failed which is why the NZ High Court has allowed this case to proceed to this stage.
NZ citizens like other citizens of the Commonwealth actually have the ability to sue their governmental agencies for damages if those actions have been deemed illegal/unlawful by the appropriate courts like in this case. Only the USA really bars its own citizens from anything like this. Other countries are actually freer it seems without having a bill of Rights etc.
The only thing that might be in the NZ Govt's favour in this matter is if they can prove that the damages were de minimus. But that's not going to occur. They are basically being charged with nonfeasance and the damage amount asked for reflects that.
Is there many people outside the continent of North America that actually use iPhones anymore?
Fingerprint scanning (and this isn't really fingerprint scanning as LEO's et.al use it) isn't really a good biometric anyway since unless Apple are reading more than 1 fingerprint of one finger it's even less secure than a 4 digit password (9999 combinations).
But hey if you want to use fingerprint's, that aren't considered by most courts to be reliable anymore (especially with only 1 finger), to secure your phone.. go right ahead
Oh and your tinfoil hat is slipping... especially since I am assuming you are waffling on about point (i) of s44 of COACA in reference to allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power. Your pissing up a rope with that idea and the HC won't ever hear it since the words allegiance, obedience, and adherence have specific and absolute meaning in this context and NOT what your conspiracy buddies and yourself think they might mean.