I mean what could possibly go wrong with the idea of 'One or more of the cops patrolling the streets, that you might interact with, has killed someone recently, but we're not telling you which'?
How could something like that possibly damage the relationship and trust between the police and the public, holding forth the idea that a cop killing someone isn't something the public needs to worry it's little head over.
I get that US police by and large see the public as it's enemy, and seem hellbent on turning that stance into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but you'd think that they'd at least be smart enough not to attempt to actively sabotage public relations this blatantly, to the point where the governor had to save them from themselves.
Whether they know it or not doesn't ultimately matter because they simply don't care. 'Bad people' are using encryption to hide from the 'good guys', therefore encryption needs to be crippled.
That this will result in an increase in crime to absolutely dwarf what was happening before isn't something they concern themselves, because they can simply blame the tech companies for not nerding hard enough and letting the bad guys through.
It's tough to believe "mugging" might be the lesser of law enforcement's desired anti-encryption evils, but that's the reality of the situation.
Which is kinda like saying "Sure they could have shot you dead, but instead they only broke your leg, so progress!"
If they can't force someone to unlock a device through legal means, then the correct response is not 'Well have you tried mugging them?', it's 'Too bad, guess you don't get everything you want, now back to actually doing your job rather than expecting everyone else to do it for you.'
Their actions here are wrong, that it's slightly better to have the cops mugging people rather than breaking encryption wholesale doesn't make it any better.
While that would motivate the CEO to see about 'updating' the software, a better choice would probably to apply that equal jail time punishment to the prosecutors, police and judges who use and approve the software.
Throw them in a cell, and let them know that it will happen every time someone is wrongfully incarcerated/jailed and you can bet that they'll lose their enthusiasm for the software right quick.
Alameda County is not the only area to have struggled with Odyssey. Similar problems have been reported in Tennessee and also in Indiana - where prosecutors have had a perhaps more troubling issue of inmates being mistakenly released early.
The prosecutors likely aren't going to lose much sleep over someone wrongly arrested and/or jailed, but criminals being let out early? That they'll care about enough to look into the problem, so hopefully that becomes the 'standard' glitch in the software to the point that they can no longer ignore it.
Because he will have the power to follow through, while Clinton won't. Clinton might have been better, she might have been worse, but since she's not going to be the president it doesn't matter in the slightest what she might have done, because it's not going to happen either way, which differs from Trump in that he will have the ability to affect things in significant ways.
The election is over, and with it the importance of what Clinton might have done, while what Trump might do is now all the more important because he, unlike her, is going to be in a position where 'mights' can turn into 'is'.
I agree with the others who've posted, the 'instructions' aren't nearly harsh enough. If there should have been a recording but there isn't the cop's entire testimony should either be barred or thrown out as a complete lie. None of this 'give it less weight', assume that the cop is lying through his/her teeth, and act accordingly.
And just like that the Copyright Office turned what was a one time payment into a steady(though smaller in the short term) stream of easy income, throwing everyone under the bus in the process.
If they follow through on their idea of a site of 'unregistered sites' then you can be sure that the extortion via copyright schemes will shoot through the roof as well, also thanks to their boneheaded and/or incompetent move.
As Padpaw noted, if there's one thing the USG is really good at it's double-standards and hypocrisy.
While the DOJ can now hack any computer anywhere with a single warrant and that's perfectly okay and now legal, if another country dared to do the same to an important US system that would of course be an unprovoked act of aggression and grounds for retaliation.
Oh I'm quite aware that she's probably even less likely than him to do so, my point was that if she actually thought it was important for the public to know she could do something about it herself, rather than just send a useless letter and act like that's the best she can do.
I believe it's been a few years, but I seem to recall at least one court ruling that was essentially just that, where they argued that your 'right' to stay silent only applied when you actively affirmed that you were using it.
Don't say 'I am invoking my fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and staying silent' and they could use your silence against you.
Obama won't, ever, release or declassify the thing, as I imagine he wants to pretend that it never happened so it doesn't add another stain to his already tainted legacy(because admitting that torture happened and he did nothing about it is so much worse than admitting it happened and endorsing it /s).
Feinstein on the other hand... If she has access to the report she could potentially release it herself, classification be damned. It would destroy her career to be sure, but if she really feels it's that important it would make a powerful statement on her part, to the point that I might actually garner some respect for her, limited as it may be, for standing up for what's right at least once in her life.
The 'an officer might take that the wrong way and shoot you' half might have been a 'friendly' warning, but the '... and no jury would ever convict them for it' bit makes it pretty clear it was a threat.
It was little different than the cop stating flat out that he could gun down Akins on the spot if he wanted and not get in trouble for it, just using different words.
A possible explanation lies in another article posted today, regarding the 'Rule 41' change. With the 'update' one warrant can be used to search thousands of computers, it's possible that something similar is going on here, where a single request is made to the government, and then turned around and used to demand access to multiple users/accounts.
In that way both sides would technically be telling the truth, though the government numbers would be just a titch shady by hiding just how large the scope of demands are.
While it's possible that the secrecy is because they're still working out the exact details and therefore don't have them available to share, I think I'm going to assume that the reason that they're keeping things hush-hush isn't because the program is just so awesome that they don't think that people would be able to handle it, but rather that they learned their lesson from the last time they got slapped down and are trying to be a little sneakier this time around.