This bill is worse than useless for many reasons, not the least of which is that it only applies to entities in the US. A software developer in Belize or Madagascar will still be able to write a messaging app without legal restriction or repercussion that offers end-to-end encryption, put it up on the web, and anyone in the US can download it and use it, and boom-- the FBI and the cops are right back to where they started, not being able to decrypt the evidence.
And just on a more philosophical level, it find it offensive that the government in a supposedly free society is essentially announcing as a matter of fundamental policy that one citizen has no right to communicate with another citizen in any manner that is un-eavesdropable (yes, I made up a word there) by government surveillors.
> But it's the obviously planned lack of options > Microsoft's request presents that should piss people off > here.
Apple has started doing this with its iOS also. Every day I'm interrupted with a pop-up on my iPhone which tells me there's a new version of the OS waiting for me and I'm given the option of either "Install Now" or "Later". If you choose "Later", it brings up another pop-up that says "Install Tonight" or "Remind Me Later". The latter option just resets the clock for 24 hours and the process starts all over again.
Nowhere is there a "I'll Upgrade When I Decide I Want to And Not Until Then, Now Shut the Fuck Up And Leave Me Alone" option.
> The court issued a valid warrant for the phone and the > search was being resisted, thus the arrest.
So if the court issued a warrant ordering you to produce knowledge in your head for the location of a murder weapon, and you refused to lead the cops to the murder weapon (whether you actually know its location or not), they can hold you in contempt and jail you indefinitely?
> they can get another warrant for the safe, which would compel you to open the safe.
(1) They wouldn't need a second warrant. Assuming what they're looking for with the first warrant could fit inside the safe, then the safe is covered by the first warrant. And if what they're looking for can't fit inside the safe, the judge won't issue a second warrant for the safe just 'cause the cops are curious what's inside it.
(2) The owner of the safe wouldn't be compelled to open the safe. The cops would just drill it open.
This is the unique problem with encryption for law enforcement. This is the first time in jurisprudential history that the government is running into "containers" that they can't break into against the will of the people who own them, so they're having to enlist the help of people to act against their own best interests.
Re: Re: Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
> If it happens that often, you have bigger problems than > whether or not someone wants to take away your shooting > stick
Perhaps, but until those bigger problems are solved, taking away the stick doesn't do me or mine any good, and in fact, only leaves them more vulnerable.
(And I'll note again, your use of pejorative terms-- "toys", "shooting stick", etc. in reference to guns in what appears to be a sad attempt to trivialize and denigrate those who have them. Why is it so hard for you to just use the word "gun"? You must have *some* reason for not doing so. Please, enlighten us.)
> I've managed 41 years on this planet without needing to > carry a deadly weapon for protection. I'm not the one > scared.
Do you lock the doors to your house? Unless you live somewhere very rural with very little people around, I would bet you do. Does that mean you're living in fear, or just taking reasonable precautions to protect yourself and your family?
> I also wonder at the kind of culture that made her feel > like she had to carry a gun with her at all times. It > seems that was justified on one occasion, but I'm glad > that's not the culture my family are subjected to.
I find it hard to believe that you don't have rapists and murderers where you live. If so, it would be the first society in all of human history to achieve that goal, and would likely be known around the world for it.
> I'm just commenting on how bizarre the thing whole thing > is from a point of view of a country that's not similarly > obsessed about such things.
What's bizarre is how you've decided that people who own and carry guns are both sexually attached to them and pretend they are penises, despite zero evidence of that being the case.
Plenty of women carry guns. Are they pretending to extend their penises, too, genius?
(Or you could just be refreshingly honest and admit that whole "fetish" and "penis extension" cliché is nothing but a lame attempt to denigrate people who own guns so its easier to dismiss their concerns.)
> The opinion doesn't go so far as to call the law unconstitutional
That's because it's not. There's nothing unconstitutional about a state outlawing texting-while-driving. If the cops pulled the guy over for speeding, and also noticed him using his phone, and asked for a consent search of it, if a time-stamped text was discovered showing he had been texting while driving, a conviction for that would be perfectly legal and constitutional.
The problem with this law is its enforceability all on its own. Without any predicate offense to justify a stop (i.e., speeding), it's impossible to enforce. That's an issue of practicality, not constitutionality.
Doesn't Indiana have a generalized "distracted driving" law, the way most states do? They should have used that as the basis for the stop, since under that law, it wouldn't matter what he was doing with his phone. If he's not paying attention to the road, he's in violation. Doesn't matter if he's fiddling with his radio, searching the web, eating a burger, or putting on makeup.
> What these school districts are demanding has always been > a student's username/login as well as their password.
This Anonymous Coward is a moron. Maybe some school district somewhere has demanded passwords and login credentials from students-- which would be illegal, by the way-- but the school that is the subject of this article is not doing that at all. All they're saying is that they're going to be watching Twitter and Facebook for signs of impending school disruptions.
No one's demanding anyone's password here.
> This is nothing but kneejerk reactions by a paranoid > school district
Behold the irony. Your knee is jerking pretty hard here, as well.
> I don't want school administrators to have access to my > children's social media accounts.
Social media, by definition, is a public forum. Everyone in the world, including people who work for your school, have access to your kids' accounts. If you let your kids post things in public, you can't then be shocked and clutch your pearls when you find out other people are reading what your kids write.
However, punishing your kids for what they post is an entirely different issue. That's a gross overreach of authority by the school.