Ten people take a picture of the same thousand locations. The spot they are standing on is different by an inch each. The angle they are looking at is different by a degree each.
Each picture will be different enough to count as a totally different image if used as a password.
Yes, a million is a low bar when guessing a password but that's a million per person on the planet, and that assumes that each of those people on the planet takes absolutely identical pictures with absolutely identical cameras of absolutely identical things under absolutely identical conditions at absolutely identical times and then picks exactly the same pictures to keep on their phone.
Somehow, I suspect the number that results will be a lot higher than one in a million.
Is the ability to use a captcha-like image AS a password. How many characters does even a small PNG represent?
Enough that even high speed offline decryption is going to stumble over even a single password, let alone an entire ISP worth.
Bandwidth is cheap these days, and you could easily drag and drop a picture chosen from your photo album into the password field. Only you'd know which picture (out of thousands, tens of thousands, even millions) is the password and since it's one of your pictures, not something chosen from a server menu, it's even more unique.
It wouldn't even need to be a picture. It could be a music file, a PDF, even your favorite ebook in plain text.
The file extension could be an added security measure -- Suppose you only had GIFs in your album, and the server is expecting a PNG? How many hackers will know to convert your password image to another format even if they know what image you use?
The difference between an act of armed robbery and a lawful seizure of a bystander's valuable property (phones are valuable enough that phone theft is felony theft in many states) is whether the officer has a lawful authority to do so.
The law grants them quite a bit of leeway in exigent circumstances and a warrant gives them that authority without exigency. But just because they want something doesn't give them exigency.
Exigency is when the video will be destroyed or lost if they fail to act. If every seizure were exigent, they'd never need warrants for anything.
If you truthfully identify yourself with contact details, and inform the officer you intend to publish the video, his lawful options shrink down to just two: Get a subpoena for a copy or forget about it entirely. Warrants are entirely off the table at that point.
Of course, if nobody ever broke the law nobody would have ever invented police officers. Or Internal Affairs divisions. Cops don't like to hear the word 'no' and will often respond violently. If the unlawful seizure weren't already armed robbery, it would be after a violent response.
Cops are not immune to arrest, and in many states resisting a citizen's arrest is just as illegal -- and justifies just as much force to complete the arrest -- as an arrest by police.
If you piss him off enough to attack you, he'll probably kill you anyway. He might even kill you if you cooperate. Why NOT attempt to arrest him for his crime?
What I want to know is how an injunction would work on a registrar that has not yet been founded, is not yet in business, and when it is created, will do business in a nation the court has no jurisdiction over?
Short of reopening the case to send out fresh injunctions every year, I don't see how that could possibly work.
Another technology that would work for this, is a magnetic induction electrical system.
Using the same technology as those wireless charger mats some cell phones use, you can wire an entire house that way..
With a thin layer of sheet metal behind the drywall, you could attach light fixtures to the wall magnetically, without wires -- they draw power through the wall by magnetic induction, the magnetic coil being activated by the fixture being stuck to the wall.
As a bonus, it would be even more impenetrable to radar than spackling mesh is.
Shouldn't be too hard to line the walls and ceiling with metal.
One of the common methods for attaching spackle to drywall is a metal mesh overlay -- the mesh is nailed or glued to the wall, then the spackle adheres to the mesh. As long as the holes in the mesh are smaller than the waves hitting them, the radar is blocked.
Normally the mesh is only used at the join of two sheets of drywall, but there's no reason (other than cost) not to do the whole wall with it,
Additionally, since the mesh is insulated by the wall, you could even rig it as a fully functional Faraday cage.