I hit you in the face last week, but I'm not hitting you now, no problem
I hate how the courts are dodging around what was probably literally trillions of violations of civil rights. Look at the theory here, by HRW, government and court:
It's like the victim argues, "You're hitting me in the face now, and I want you to stop." The perp responds, "I might have hit you in the face last month, but you have no actual proof I'm hitting you in the face right now." Then the oh-so-helpful court responds, "Since the perp didn't actually prove he wasn't hitting the victim in the face right now, the victim's case can proceed."
The dumbest arguments I've ever heard. What about the bruises for last month's beating: when does the victim get recompense for those?
Oh, man, don't give them ideas. They'll be like the airlines:
"Yes sir, the room is $28. Now, will you be needing basic plumbing? That's $19 additional. Oh, you'll want to take a shower, too? Then that will be $24 extra. Now the rooms can get a bit uncomfortable without the climate comfort package, will you want that? Only $18 extra. Right. Now, if will you need to be plugging in any devices..."
Let's make this very clear: anyone who is looking for weaknesses in our product is a criminal. We'd very much prefer to limit such activities to the criminals who rob and abuse our customers, but do it in secret. We really hate criminals who talk to the ******* press.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think Sophos is to blame on this.
It does not matter.
The encryption export restrictions apply to all use of encryption, no matter how it is used by the software and no matter how its use is restricted. If the software contains encryption code, it's subject to the restrictions.
"In many jurisdictions, use of recording devices without the consent of both parties is unlawful."
But in many jurisdictions it is not. In every such jurisdiction, Union members should record union-busting activities, using their own app.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, so this needs legal consideration, but it has always seemed to me that if Joe is recording John, then Joe has implicitly given permission for John to record Joe. How can Joe say, "I never gave permission to record," even as Joe is recording?
Actually, this can be solved easily...and probably will be, ultimately. Congress simply passes a law stating that lab errors are incidental and cannot be reviewed; another law that protects forensics labs from external investigation; and a law that protects prosecutors from penalties for concealing exculpatory evidence. Simple. Done all the time.
After all, we've got to keep those private prison corporations profitable and also protect the reputation of our legal system.