If the deadline passed "with nary a smiling monkey complaint," then how can they expect the filing to be processed? Yes exceptions can sometimes be made, but my experience with the courts is that they'd rather _not_ make decisions, and when there is a legitimate reason to reject something, they use it.
Otherwise "deadline" doesn't mean what they think it means. ... and that is inconceivable!
I must have missed the ArsTechnica toe-dip in the dark side; I have been a supporter of them for years and I'm glad I don't need to drop them.
I have/had both Wired and Slate in my RSS news feeds for a while. As noted above, Wired recently started blocking users using blockers (I use Ad Block plus); I now no longer have Wired in my news feed. I kind of miss it (and I actually subscribe to the physical magazine!) but it was too annoying to deal with.
Slate, on the other hand just displays a removable footer noting that it noticed my blocker and could I please subscribe...
If the ads were controlled by the sites themselves, I'd probably white list them, but in almost all these cases the ads are coming from a service (google, or some other purveyor of web ads); how far should my trust go? Ads these days can be used to pwn your machine -- in the current case I would need to trust Wired's trust in their ad source's vetting of their advertisers, and I can easily imagine their vetting process being fooled.
To the original question: link to them. Maybe set up a style to indicate link targets? Pay-walled vs Ad-blocking vs NSFW vs "normal"?
When Holder’s resignation was announced, the Office of Information Policy made a FOIA request for the identity of the new Attorney General, so they could correct their FAQs. They are still awaiting a response.
Who the Attorney General is should be considered a national secret; disclosure would compromise too many active investigations and prosecutions. /s
they are asking for a backdoor -- just a narrow one that can only be used for this phone and would be ineffective against most modern iPhones
Which would imply that if Apple seriously considers this everyone will be dumping their old iPhones for the "modern iPhones" (i.e. more sales!) -- if they trust Apple at all after this (i.e. fewer sales!).
As for brute forcing: I would think they could copy all the data off the existing phone, encrypted though it may be, just in case they "accidentally" cause a data wipe; whether they could copy that (encrypted) data back may be an issue, but it would seem to be a way to start.
It would require, simply, that designers and makers of operating systems not design or build them to be impregnable to lawful governmental searches.
This cannot, by definition, exclude encryption since no encryption is impregnable.
im·preg·na·ble imˈpreɡnəb(ə)l/ adjective ·(of a fortified position) unable to be captured or broken into. "an impregnable wall of solid sandstone" ·unable to be defeated or destroyed; unassailable. "the case against Hastings would have been almost impregnable"
No encryption is impossible to break, just difficult (for large values of "difficult").
Of course the FBI would be able to come up with losses totaling greater than $5,000. The offense was happening in a restaurant after all (albeit not at the end of the Universe (I hope!)).
Bistro Mathematics comes into play, and almost any number, no matter how improbable, can be found.
For example: just imagine the number of customers who will stay away from that pizza place because of its connection to the Rubio campaign? That should total a couple of million people (at $1 per person even!) right there, with the poll numbers as obvious evidence.
L8NT would plug the USB device into their in-car laptops
and a shiver went down my spine with memories of Stuxnet's distribution mechanism.
I just see this as another variation of LPR's; they'll track all the MAC addresses along with their locations and keep them around for searching at their leisure (for some unspecified period of time) with no oversight.