That's the whole problem. They don't really have a simple way to create a list of every prisoner convicted on the basis of this technician's work. Some, but not all, defendants are named with the sample tested, many names were left off. The only way to create the complete list is to have a person go to the paper court records scattered all over the place, and read them all. Given the reasons why this is being done, it probably should also involve a second person doing an audit of the first person's work.
Why? An ISP has no business reason to every track what web sites you visit, or who you send email too. At most they need to track aggregate data usage, and that is only needed long enough for the billing to be settled. If law enforcement needs more than that, they can go to a judge and make a case for obtaining a warrant. While they are there, it should be made very clear that evidence too secret to be revealed to the defence at trial is not evidence at all, and will not be accepted by the courts. It should also be redundant to point out that any material errors in the evidence presented should automatically invalidate the warrant, and make any evidence collected under that warrant inadmissible in court.
Police and security organizations have been abusing the trust placed in them for decades now. It's high time police should be trusted no more than the defendants they bring before the courts. At best, the sworn word of a police officer should not be given any more weight than the sworn word of a witness who has nothing to gain from the outcome of the case.
The only problem I have with that is that it would put politicians in charge of running the pipes. For an example of why that's not a good thing, just take a look at the condition of those highways that the politicians are already in chsrge of.
"Content Protection" is like handing someone a locked box, with the key taped to the bottom of the box, and expecting they will only be able to open the box at a certain location and a certain time of day.
If the FAA wants to regulate drones, it should be on the basis of safety only. Drones large enough to be a hazard to aircraft should be licensed with a mandated requirement for built-in restrictions for flights near an airport. Drones small enough to not be a hazard would be license free. Drones that might be a hazard if they crash should be licensed somewhere in between those extremes. Drones that could be a hazard to aircraft should be permitted near the airport only with written permission from the airport operator. Such permission to include acceptable flight locations, date, and times that the permssion is granted.
It's not the FAA's authority to judge based on why the drone flight is desired, only that it be a safe flight.
if I go into a major retailer and buy a USB to serial cable, how am I to peek inside the molded plastic and identify the fake chips before I buy the cable? I have no way to identify fake chips inside equipment. The retailer has no way of identifying fake chips inside equipment. The manufacturer *may* know that there are fake chips in the equipment, or they may have been duped by a supplier. The supplier probably knows that the chips are fakes.
So I'm expected to dig three levels deep into the supply chain just so I don't have to worry about some software update bricking my $20 cable?