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.
Well, cruise missiles work by inertial guidance (and to a degree, location pattern recognition), not GPS; "smart" bombs work via laser guidance (shine a laser on the target and it follows it in).
The issue with GPS is the fidelity of the signal is controlled by the agency that runs the satellites/network, and if you don't like how they're being run (or the fact that they may stop working when you want them to work), you build your own network. It all depends on how much you are willing to spend.
But, supply a tool and some people will work out how to misuse it
I think "use it differently" might be more appropriate -- it is the epitome of "hacking". Granted this case is an example of the "black" form of hacking; to paraphrase Hanover Fist: "They should be torn into itsy little pieces and buried alive."
Lenovo has certainly earned a spot on my "do not buy" list.
this document seems ridiculously relevant to the debate
True in many layers. The document/interpretation is likely as ridiculous as the "torture memo" and it most certainly is relevant to any discussion about cyber legislation. Sometimes I just have to wonder about lawyers -- when given a task to prove black equals white they tend not to say "are you nuts?" but "when do you need this?" (and it isn't even about the billable hours!)
If this money is completely unrelated to criminal activity, the government has just stolen money from one of its citizens.
Who cares if it related or unrelated to criminal activity? The TSA (and the airport police) have *no* probable cause for considering it related to criminal activity.
Note that for cash it has "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private", whereas a check (or other means of money transfer) doesn't; there is no reason for anyone to gainsay why a person is carrying cash: all debts public and private means the reason can be private.
Look at the issues with the liability of airlines following the 11SEP2001 "events". Until the government absolved them, they were on the hook for being sued (negligence contributing to the disaster(s) at the least). At that time security screening was paid for by the airlines; letting the government take it over lets them off the hook if bad guys get through again.
All the security theater has done for me is reduce my willingness to go on airplanes, not because of the airplanes and cattle-car like amenities, but just the pain and hassle of getting through airports. I have better uses for my time.