... I believe the next level of review is de novo(?) by the district judge.
I don't know from criminal procedure, but did notice in Orenstein's (fabulous) Order that he was careful to point out, several times, that he was making discretionary calls on various elements. That would seem to indicate that his Order may be reviewed on the abuse of discretion standard. As the Magistrate basically works for the Article III District Court judge (taking the load off), I would hope that means the govt has to go to the appellate court, who can only overturn it for clear abuse of discretion, which is a tough standard to meet.
Re: Procedurally Bizarre Fallacious Preemptive Motion to Compel
... Point is there appears to have been no rational or legal reason for the DOJ to bring this motion to compel. It's premature.
So the real reason must be that DOJ wanted to get their version of the story into the press/public to counter Apple's statements (and it reads like it; and the press did eat it up). And if so, that's not a legit use of our tax dollars in my book.
Re: Re: or maybe it's more calculated than it appears...
I was presenting a somewhat cynical but pragmatic viewpoint. The judge must know it's a big-ticket issue, and that Apple is in the best position to answer it.
Obviously the order is troubling, and I agree that five business days to oppose is prohibitively short. But then, perhaps it doesn't take much to show that coding new software for one case is unduly burdensome.
I was going from the basic premise that I have never been before a magistrate who was truly an idiot (which I cannot say about Article III judges), so perhaps there was some calculation behind the otherwise frightening order. (AKA, trying to find reason and order amid the chaos.)
So, we have Judge Pym stuck between the US Attorneys and defense counsel arguing about what Apple can/cannot do, driving her mad. She's gotta do something to move this forward, or at least to shut counsel up, and the best way to find out what Apple can or cannot do is to ask Apple.
And she may well even understand the implications of asking Apple to undermine its own encryption. But the best way to get that in the record is to give Apple a chance to fully explain why it is a bad idea, or impossible. Notice and opportunity to be heard.
And Apple is not likely to say "Yeah, we can write this backdoor brute-force buddy software" because that would mean that someone else could write that software, which would mean that Apple's encryption now has a known point of potential compromise. So Apple will say it can't write that software. And then the US Attys will hopefully shut up about it already.
(It's not easy to become a federal magistrate ...)
... not to mention he was essentially 86'd from his "target"
Another fun bit is that the bar Lutchman was allegedly going to terrorize considered him an "aggressive panhandler" and had kicked him out more than once. He probably couldn't have gotten in the door as himself.
The last time I saw the Blue Book was in law school, mid-90s. I have never used it since. Because...
1. The Internet came around. 2. Most citable materials tell you exactly how to cite to them. 3. Many administrative bodies and courts have their own citation rules anyway. And of course, when you want a judge to go your way, you play by his/her rules. 4. Like language/communication in general, the goal of a citation is to relay the information clearly. Judges want to be able to locate the cite, and really don't care whether the date of the publication is in parentheses or before or after the cite, etc.
Sorry Blue Book, but your days are numbered (hence the attempts to maintain a tight grip on potential competition? ... i.e., dying industries start to threaten and sue to maintain status quo...).
Holding 51% of the hashing power may allow a bad player to alter some transactions in previous blocks on the chain, but not much beyond that. It would take much more mining power than everyone else combined to really wreak havoc. And since mining is done by huge farms full of dedicated ASIC machines (in China and elsewhere), or individuals in pools, a govt. intervenor would not be something that could really be kept secret, and measures could be taken at various levels down to the protocol.
Right now Bitcoin has $5.5 BILLION market cap. That's a lot of power to the people. The US gobment has shown no inclination to "shut down" Bitcoin -- a quixotic quest in any event. They'd rather regulate it and take some of that cash for themselves.
... yes, there is the investment vs. currency problem. This ties into the biggest threshold issue -- the "adoption" problem. I think the idea is that if adoption is more widespread, more stability will follow, and then it's just like any other currency whose value is always changing relative to different currencies. (e.g., USD is 'strong' right now.)
If I'm understanding this right, this doesn't do anything about the total supply of Bitcoins. That seems to me to be a serious limiting factor in its potential growth.
Bitcoin is a deflationary currency by design. The 21M total is hard-coded into the protocol. It is meant to emulate finite precious metals, which is why it is "mined." This is a good thing because nobody can just "print more money" and inflate it, causing the value to drop. It's also not a problem because it's divisible to 8 decimal points; and they already have names for fractionals (0.00000001 = 1 Satoshi).
So even if 1 BTC is worth $1M, it's not really a problem. (The hardcore anarchist fanboys think Bitcoin will supplant the banks and other currencies, but that's neither realistic nor desired. If it did, there might be deflation issues, but it won't. As long as there are governments, there will be government-backed currencies.)
I think it's wise of Agora to shut down and move servers for a bit. After all, even a tiny chance of getting caught is worth avoiding when it means going to jail for life. Yay drug war. _______
Since nobody cared about this but me, I'll note as aside that bitcoin price crash was not really because of potential forking by BitcoinXT. It was a 10k BTC short (approx. $2.3M) on Bitfinex exchange causing a flash crash and margin calls on the way down.
That was Wed. 8.19 and BitcoinXT build had launched the previous Sunday. But the mainstream press didn't get to the XT issue until days later and was all kinds of wrong about it (Bitcoin At Risk of Dividing into Two Currencies!). So there was an unrelated crash, and the wrong press contributed to panic selling by those who didn't get it.
Simple fact is XT won't kick in unless there's 75% using it, and only after Jan 2016. If so, there will be two blockchains until the miners/nodes on the wrong blockchain move to XT. If the miners don't, they will stop making money. So that'll take maybe hours or days. Then the XT will be called "Bitcoin" and will be scalable (bigger blocks), which current Bitcoin Core is not.
The devs who launched XT are being castigated for taking things into their own hands, but since consensus could not be reached, this was a way to force it. Ugly, but effective. They contend the reason the Bitcoin Core devs who object to increased block size do so because they are involved with Blockstream, which is developing Lightning Network sidechain tech designed to take load off the small 1MB blocks. If the block size increases, all the Lightning Network VC/Angel money and work will be obsolete before it launches. So the Bitcoin Core devs are basically accused of wanting to have a "low volume settlement network" whereas the idea is for a global currency, which means more than 7 transactions per second, which is about the max right now.
The quotes from other writers (i.e., notorious censorious asshats) about Cushing are too precious for just a bio. Total validation of mission success in 55 words. The entire blurb deserves a place on his tombstone.
No matter how many times a flipped coin comes up heads, the probability remains the same on the next flip. Hence, just because one or even dozens of sorority souvenir books are not bombs has no bearing on the probability of the next sorority souvenir book not being bomb. Duh.
To be fair, the Motion in Limine is just preemptive evidentiary objection -- a way to alert the court that opposition may try to introduce prejudicial or otherwise inadmissible evidence. Because if it comes up for the first time before a jury, and the judge rules it inadmissible, then it's hard to "unring the bell" in the jury's mind. (They might go look at the blogs, which is improper and grounds for a new trial if discovered anyway.)
And I don't see how these third-party anti-troll blogs (which I read) would have much in the way of admissible evidence anyway. 1) It would all be hearsay, so likely inadmissible for the truth of the statements in the blogs. 2) Courts generally want the focus on the parties' acts in this case, not their behavior outside (unless directly relevant). 3) To the extent the blogs reference court rulings, those rulings can admissible as the subject of judicial notice. But a blogger's take on it would generally not be admissible.
So ... not defending Malibu Scumfuck Media in any way, the Motion in Limine is probably a prudent tactical move (assuming there is actually a trial on the horizon).
As noted elsewhere, courts don't like to operate in a vacuum, and would likely defer any decision until getting more info on potentially proffered evidence.