It is only an assumption, an IF, on TechDirt's part.
There MAY be a proprietary connection on the FBI kiosk...
It is unknown whether proprietary cables are needed.
Given that the FBI would want to promote abuse of these kiosks, why should they require anything other than standard off the shelf cables. And yes, it is correct to assume that they deliberately intend to promote abuse. Otherwise why go to all the trouble to put these into kiosks that anyone can access with no controls other than a mere token that allows them to claim that usage is controlled by an appointment, a form and required cables.
If the cables requirement is so easy to work around, how difficult is it to work around the appointment requirement and the signature requirement.
I seem to recall that CFAA can get you 35 years in prison.
I seem to recall that CFAA has been stretched, twisted and construed to include violating a web site's TOS. (terms of service)
I don't know which social media sites the prosecutor might have created a fake account on, and have not read it's TOS (terms of slavery), but I strongly suspect that the prosecutor was in violation of the social media site's TOS.
Now if you connect the dots*, the prosecutor should have been threatened with 35 years in prison. After all, what's good for Aaron Swartz is good for the prosecutor.
But then there's that 'high court, low court' thing. And old boy networks. And blue wall of silence. Etc. So I guess that makes it all okay.
And they wonder why the courts, court officers, law enforcement and its officers, the law, the legislature and the government are not respected. They demand your respect! Right now!
* remedial 'connect the dots' because these days too few people are able to 'do the math'.
A bit of googling tells me that the number of people have been killed in terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001 are far, far fewer than the number of people who die in automobile accidents every single year as a result of cars driven by inferior, annoying, distracted, sleepy humans.
What if we took away all of the resources wasted on the War On Terror and spent it on a new 'moon shot' or 'manhattan project'? Let's call it: The War On Human Driven Cars.
The number of lives saved would be enormously larger.
"If the public does nothing, encryption like that will continue to roll out," he said. "It has public safety costs. Folks have to understand that, and figure out how they are going to deal with that. Do they want the public to bear those costs? Do they want the victims of terrorism to bear those costs?"
Maybe bearing those costs would be far better than bearing the costs of human driven vehicles?
Foreign phone manufacturers will simply have: 1. a backdoored version for the US and other repressive regimes. 2. a secure phone for free countries.
US manufacturers will have either one phone version for everyone, or will as in the previous paragraph have two versions for free and non-free countries. Either way, nobody will trust US made phones. The other 96% of the world's population will not want US made phones. (Even if they are physically manufactured in China.)
Good job California! Great way to destroy American business.
So proudly announcing the sponsorship of a newsworthy article, in the public interest, is selling out?
How would you react if a company approached TechDirt, says, write this specific content favorable to me, in exchange for money, and keep it a secret. Would you call that 'selling out' or would you call it good honest 'lobbying'?
Similarly, what would your reaction be if TechDirt has an ad disguised as if it were an article? Not 'selling out' but good ol' dishonest 'advertising'?
Selling Out is what happens when an artist signs with an RIAA label. Not what happens with an article is sponsored.
Automatically playing sound and video on a web page does break a social contract. But since when do advertisers care about such things?
When I visit a site and it has video playing, even silent video, I am done with that site. Or at the very least with that page view.
The ironic thing is that the web site operator and the advertiser incorrectly believes a good thing just happened -- an ad impression. It was an 'impression' alright, but not the kind they were wanting. It made me less likely to ever visit their site again. More likely to attempt to block it in any way possible. Etc. This builds up over time until they wonder what happened?
Web sites that start putting product placement within their content soon become the ones that I stop visiting once it becomes obnoxious enough. If I were looking for what the advertiser was selling, I can easily find the companies that are selling what I want to buy. And, like Netflix, when I WANT IT, not when the advertiser wants it. And on the device I want it. And where I want it.
And product placements in TV? I mentioned in a previous TD post that the remaining two TV programs I was watching a few years ago, on CBS, I quit watching due to horrible product placement. It just ruined the show, so I quit watching. I hope CBS is happy with the result. At least I am. So now I watch no network TV at all. Or cable.
Netflix and Hulu work great without ads.
As for product placements in Movies? The new Star Wars movie was the first movie I had seen at a theater in quite a long time. I didn't seem to notice any product placements for space craft or space suits, or particular brands of light sabers. My family and I booked our tickets weeks in advance, and then saw the movie several times, including the opening night showing. And bought opening night T-shirts, etc.
I might be part of an attractive demographic to advertisers -- but I can't stand advertisers and have a violently revolting reaction towards them.
The fact that there were some ads before the movie reinforced my extreme reluctance to attend movie theaters.
As for TechDirt having promotional ads and content, I don't mind that. It is a direct, honest and straightforward approach.
This PDF describes how an organized crime ring was busted that was successfully counterfeiting the secure chip credit cards.
While the technique of how the FUN chips were overlaid onto the legitimate chips is fascinating itself, I want to point out part of how the criminals were caught.
See the top of page 3:
Because transactions take place at well-defined geographic locations and at well-defined moments in time, intersecting the IMSIs 6 of SIM cards present near the crime scenes immediately revealed the perpetrators’ SIM card details. A 25 years old woman was subsequently identified and arrested, while carrying a large number of cigarette packs and scratch games. Such larceny was the fraudsters’ main target, as they resold these goods on the black market.
Investigators quickly put a name on most of the gang members. Four were arrested, including the engineer who created the fake cards. Arrests occurred in the French cities of Ezanville, Auchy-les-Mines and Rouvroy. About 25 stolen cards were seized, as well as specialized software and e 5000 in cash.
So let me see if I got this right.
They can take the time the credit card transaction was made, and correlate it with all cell phones that were physically present in the area. Then repeat this for several different transactions. This helps them quickly narrow down the individuals who are consistently present when the forged card is used.
By driving your car, you make your location available to license plate readers.
Everyone knows this is possible. But shouldn't you still have an expectation of being able to freely and privately move about unless there is some other reason to suspect you of a crime? Just like the location of your cell phone.
Also, these days, anyone can build a license plate reader using the Open CV library. You might not have the license plate registration data, but it might be surprising the amount of data that a non-police user of such a tool could amass over time. A large database of where license plates were spotted correlated with GPS location.
Maybe Google cars should collect license plate data? Advertisers would love to know that, your plate is frequently parked at your house, but then you also visit certain competitor's stores that the advertiser could try to entice you away from and into their store. On the surface it seems legit enough. But it would become a privacy nightmare.
You have no expectation of privacy of where you drive your car to.
Everyone knows that police use license plate readers and maintain detailed and probably permanent records of every time their system has observed your car.
I'm sure quite a history could be learned about you.
And your car might be keeping tabs on how you drive.
I suppose the thing is, SHOULD we be able to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I believe we should. But judges will believe otherwise, because this privacy invading data is so darn valuable to would be tyrants.