Options include accepting the spoliation of evidence as collateral damage for the illegal search; coming up with a Faraday-bag style isolation like you describe; or being willing to accept that a remote wipe is a possibility. If the phone's owner has been arrested, it's less likely that they have capabilities to execute a remote wipe, but it's a possibility.
However, it's possible to force either the potential spoliation-of-battery-case-evidence or device-gets-wiped situation by writing some sort of "wake every 30 minutes and check if my owner has entered their pass-code at any time in the last 24hr, and if not, wipe myself" program.
If you're going to bring a bomb to school in TX, make sure that it looks like some professionally made football equipment, not like a tinkerer's project. Because this is TX where football goes unquestioned (unlike all that sciency-math-inventor stuff).
Given that all other communications seemed to occur by secure couriered flash-drives, that browsing porn (or any other sort of images) via flash-drive would be pretty tedious.
Osama: [browsing aforementioned gay Mexican midget porn] Amir, I request to see this image but with his leather jacket removed Amir: Yes, sir. [3 months transpire] Amir: Here, sir, is the next image in the series. He has removed the leather jacket. Osama: Mmm. That naughty fellow. Just how I like it. Now, Amir, fetch me the next image in the sequence. The one without the leather chaps… Amir: «sighs» Yes, sir. [3 more months transpire] Amir:Sir, your… Osama: [rips flash drive from Amir's hand and runs to private section of cave]
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Transportation Security Administration announces its recent partnership with the Roman Catholic Church. Beginning in time for the Christmas travel season, the Vatican will supply additional staff to perform pat-down searches and monitor the full-body scanners.
A small but vocal minority of fliers have expressed concern regarding the program. TSA spokesman Dick Tickle dismisses the opposition as an aggrieved minority, stating that the financial savings and increased security benefit taxpayers and travellers alike.
"My co-workers and I are uncomfortable with the intimate nature of the pat-down searches required for those who opt out of the full-body scannings," notes TSA agent Willie G. Roper. "The priests don't seem to object, the people trust them, and they reportedly bring years of experience with them."
Father John Geoghan eagerly looks forward to helping secure America's transportation network. "I've seen the images produced by the backscatter/millimeter-wave systems, and there's no hiding anything."
Given the expected success of the new program, Tickle hints that the agency plans to extend its subcontracting relationships, starting with state correctional institutions. "A number of parolees and work-release prisoners have a difficult time finding jobs because of their record. In some cases, their names will appear on the sex-offender registry for the rest of their life. We offer them hope at reintegrating into society while making travel safer."
First, I never figured I'd see such readily obvious comparisons between The Weather Channel and MTV. MTV used to actually show music around the clock, but is now mostly filler fluff with no music. The Weather Channel used to actually show weather around the clock, but is now mostly filler fluff with no weather.
Second, this is the same Weather Channel that, on multiple occasions, has given an up-to-the-minute forecast of 0% chance of precipitation for my rather small Zip code when I can see a deluge outside. No love lost for those weather witches.
In the case of advertising-supported sites, I'd lean strongly toward the thresholding criteria.
I'm not sure I'd exempt non-profits categorically. For those that are above the aforementioned threshold or are below the threshold and receive federal funds, they should meet accessibility criteria. I would exempt those that are below the threshold and don't receive federal funds (though would still assert that making a non-profit's site accessible is a wise move for multiple reasons).
Generally website visitors are the customers. However, there are edge cases
a site is there to lure visitors' eyeballs to the advertising purchased by the actual customers. I'm somewhat up in the air on this variety, but would posit that ① it would be in the best interest of the site to ensure the widest possible audience, and ② if it's just advertising, there's less harm in (in)accessibility. I do find grey areas where the site provides a useful service in exchange for eyeballs to advertise to (e.g., Facebook, Gmail, etc)
See my “Bakeries and websites" conversation above. “Quite apart from unintended consequences, additional legal complications that discourage young religious bakers from going into baked-good-making, and arguments about the free market and freedom of [expression or religion], that phrase is just weird in this context.” When minority groups are shut out of a business, the government needs to apply measures equally: whether allowing websites and businesses such as bakeries the option to discriminate (the leaning of my libertarian side), or requiring websites and business to treat visitors equally (the leaning of my Christian side, contrary to popular media brouhaha on the matter).
See also my thread about minimum thresholds—an individual “young [person]” or small Mom & Pop business wouldn't be subject to such regulations until they met a minimum size/income, keeping them fairly “reasonable demands”.