When Larpenter was asked whether there is a conflict in him investigating an alleged crime involving himself, he replied, "If you're gonna lie about me and make it under a fictitious name, I'm gonna come after you."
This isn't even science. Software automates application of theories.
For example, ballistics software takes theories of ballistic trajectories and wind resistance, factors in information like projectile details and wind velocity, and predicts a landing spot.
You could achieve the same thing on paper, but it's less reliable over time and much slower. That being said, it's reproducible.
This software automates what science, exactly? Computers can only do what we can tell them to do (Skynet notwithstanding) so what amazing algorithmics did some podunk company from nowhere come up with to solve problems that have stymied some of the best funded organizations on the planet? (e.g US defense dept)
Indeed. One would even say that taking the comment to mean they would actually use random numbers is skirting the actual issues the comment discusses, almost as if "Whatever" were being a dickhead to obscure the weakness of his point... hmmm.....
If hopes and feels were fish and eels, the ocean would have no room for water
We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land. I hope thoughtful people will take the time to understand that, despite the fact that what we are asking for will set loose a master key upon the land. It's like they say, it's the thought that counts.
This is absolutely why many copyright stumpers try to frame fair use as an affirmative defence. It complicates schemes like this, where automated tools/manual takedown companies (aka tools) are very very bad at discerning fair use, hence they (severe copyright enforcement types) want to make it not their problem.
The problem with it as an affirmative defence is that engage to protect this involves lawyers and lawsuits to get content unblocked and that, to date, this has not resulted in fees.
Isn't the police dept as a whole responsible for ensuring their field tests are reliable? I get maybe not holding individual cops responsible in this instance (the switch from looking for a grow op to looking for personal use notwithstanding), but the dept should have a responsibility to ensure their forensic tests are accurate. Otherwise, tests which are notorious for false positives become probable cause factories.
Strong encryption is out of the bag, and short of major evolutions in quantum computing or solving the whole P vs NP thing, there's no getting around it.
The oldies have (re)fallen into the trap of thinking technology comes from a place invented by a guy named "Head of Technology". Technology is sometimes messy and organic in its evolution, it defies control.
Even if they get Apple and Google and Microsoft and, and, and to backdoor encryption, the motivated will use (and evolve) OSS crypto tools, and the motivated include the bad guys. Those "common folk" not skilled enough to leverage this will be left with their asses in the wind.