In a democracy (or reasonable facsimile) the People ARE the government.
When a police officer uses threats of violence against someone it is usually to compel them to act in a certain way. A fair amount of the time the way the police want people to act is to stop exercising troubling (to the government) political speech.
Take note of how many peaceful protests are broken up by police in riot gear, who simultaneously claim that showing up to a protest with anything that can be used as a weapon is proof of unlawful intent.
Re: Re: Sometimes it really IS conspiracy, not stupidity
A good example, at least on the porn side of things, is breasts and genitals.
Showing breasts isn't considered obscene or illegal in Japan, but showing a penis or vagina is. I wonder how Japanese people would react if every image in Japan that showed breasts suddenly sported a censor bar when viewed via a Google search -- would they accept an explanation that showing breasts is illegal in other countries so Google has to censor globally?
Islamic governments don't prohibit Christianity, they 'merely' tax it and apply certain advertising-based restrictions (none of which would be legal in the US, mind you). Judaism operates under similar restrictions in Islamic countries.
The reasoning is they all worship the same God, they just have disagreements about who the Messiah is and what name God prefers.
Shinto on the other hand, is anathema in Islamic countries since it involves worship of deities other than Allah.
Might be fun to sue Google to compel them to do exactly that in Japan...not seriously of course, but once you file the lawsuit declaring Shinto a blasphemy against Allah, point out to the Japanese government that if a Japanese court can order the removal of links in Iran...
The much talked about, never yet seen massive cyber attack on infrastructure the NSA and FBI are constantly blathering about would first require that they connect vital systems to the internet -- and only an idiot or a traitor would do that.
If vital systems that need to be secure are connected via WiFi, that's just ASKING to be hacked. They're just lucky the first member of the general public to notice is a white hat, not a black hat.
Based on what he tweeted, he had access to the network that the plane uses to distribute commands to systems outside of the cockpit. Such as the one that controls the oxygen masks that drop from the ceiling during an in-flight emergency.
The fact that that is even POSSIBLE for someone sitting in the passenger area is terrifying -- the sort of security flaw that should result in every plane using that network system being grounded instantly and permanently until it is fixed.
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?