Naruto saw people aiming cameras (at others or at themselves) probably thousands of time per day. He saw that, when this happened, people "smiled" and - whoever had the camera - pushed the button. This he saw and this he could do too. That, in no way, means that he understood that doing so would make a photograph. What you have is not an act of creativity, it's just "monkey see, monkey do". I don't believe that PETA cares if they win ... or loose (in court); they've already "won" with the incredible PR.
If the postponement is granted, just watch .. in a few weeks, there will be an announcment that, with additional research, based "in part" on the new vunerability, the FBI was able to determine that there is no useful data on the phone and, for this reason, they have no further interest in persuing their suit against Apple. This is a ploy to save face while backing out of a situation that exploded in their faces beyond their worst PR nightmares.
The don't need to get into the phone to find out "who he talked to" - that information is available from the service provider (which, I'm sure, they already have). This was a work phone; he also had a personal phone (which was distroyed); the odds of there being anything of any significance on this phone are pretty much zero. Any "serious" communication he'd had would have been on his personsal phone (which he controled), not on a work phone (which was not his).
As a side note, I stopped using "air travel" over a decade ago because of TSA. It's not that I'm a criminal or a terrorist, it's that the "terrorist risk" (very tiny) did not warrent the response (I.E. being treated as a criminal at the airport).
Remember what they were doing to Aaron Swartz .... This is what they DO. Catching actual criminals is too difficult for them, so they get anyone in a vaguely "grey" area (or, failing at that, simply make stuff up) and do a pile on with charges.
In my opinion, I think you should still link to them with a note that it refuses ad-blocking, just as you note articles that behind a paywall (I don't see a whole lot of difference), and then, perhaps, also list an alternate source? While I don't bother with an adblocker program or plugin, I do have most ad servers themselves blocked (redirected) in other ways. This does sometimes get captured as an ad-blocker; when that happens, I just go somewhere else.
Any LEO that is filling out the survey honestly will be stopped right there. When they find they cannot continue without lying, they'll shrug, say "oh, well" and give up. This means that - when it's analysed - 100% of (ligitimate) respondants will report having had problems involving encryption!
“Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil,”
They just want everyone to know just how serious they are about this investigation: co-operate, "or else"! Or perhaps they've used the CIA's "interrigation" techniques (which, I've heard, sometimes had this effect too)?
As I understand it, the order is to Apple, not to individual engeneers. If that is true, the individual engeneers could walk away and there is nothing anyone could do about it; they [the engeneers] aren't ignorning the order - it's not directed at them.
[...] just be targeted towards this one phone [...]
Only an idiot would actually believe that. This is about whether or not Apple is capable of compromising their devices and whether or not they can be compelled to do so on demand. Once it's proven that they can do it and can be compelled to do so, this door is forever open for abuse. It also proves that it can be done - so how long before some ingenious hacker figures out how to do it in the wild?
[...] ESPN's faced with the fact that 56% of cable users no longer want to watch the channel [...]
I have to ask: what percentage of cable users are - or were - never interested in their product at all and never viewed it at all, but got counted as "subscribers" because they had no choice if they wanted any cable TV? I know that's the boat I was in before I finally cut the cord a few years ago.
I'm puzzled by the discussion around Elon's licensing his patents. As I understand it, a license (as applied to software and/or patents) is an agreement about the conditions underwhich that product can be utilized. In this case, there is no agreement involved; Elon has simply said that anyone that wants to use this patent can do so without fear of repercussion (read "litigation"). Does that qualify as a "license"?
While this comment is totally off topic (and I apologize for that), you've made such a good point that I think it needs mentioned. There should be a way that the "public at large" can force a law to be repealed if the majority believe it's unjust or just plain wrong.
There are so many things wrong with their arguements that it's hard to know where to start .... The only data I "voluntarily" share with the phone company is the number of the person I want to call. I am aware that there is more data sent from my phone, but I was never given a choice about that, so the term "voluntary" doesn't apply. Even so, why should I **not** have an expectation that the phone company will respect my privacy? Phone meta-data is not "shared with the world" ... I'd have a difficult time even getting my OWN from the phone company (other than call info), let alone anyone elses. So much for "sharing with the world"! Next, we have "who do I (in)voluntarily share data with?" Easy - the phone company, via their towers. At no point do I agree to connect to any other transceiver (such as a Stingray). Those are not cell towers, and there is absolutely NO agreement to connect to them. Even the "pen register" stuff - I have less issue with pen-register searches if they were done as originally intended. They only returned data on when and what number was called - absolutely NOTHING else.
I think that the IP would be more the equivelent of the license plate of a car - a person's drivers license would be more or less the equivelent of a MAC address ... which can be spoofed, just as a license number can be forged.
The real idiocy here is that as soon as you censor the ideas of a particular group, people – who already distrust “all things government” - begin to wonder what it is that “they” [government] doesn't want the people to know, so they go looking for answers. Instead of decreasing exposure, they risk increasing it - from curiosity. The only workable response to “terrorist propaganda” is well reasoned (as in, “average people” will understand it) counter propaganda. Do objective, critical analysis of their propaganda and – dispassionately! - point out the errors and consequences of their instructions and suggestions, basing those on obvious FACTS, not on “touchy-feely” appeals that look more like emotional attacks than anything else. That said, quite frankly, the US (and the other “Five Eyes”) have very little in the way of moral high-ground from which to criticize what extremist groups do. What, exactly, do the extremists do that our governments don't? Execute people? look into “extra-judicial killings”. Torture? remember the CIA torture report? Kidnapping? investigate the governments detention policies. Expropriation? how about “asset forfeiture” (as now practised by LEO in the US)? Maybe the best answer is to prove – by example – that the way of life in the “free countries” really is better by setting an example of BEING better. Stop doing all this stupid-ass crap and go back to what the Fore-Fathers envisioned our countries to be. Extremist groups use violence as an answer to their perceived grievances; I can understand that because it's the same behaviour you see in children, too immature to make reasoned choices. The western countries are supposed to be more mature – so why aren't they behaving more maturely? When you lower yourself to the level of a bully you simply become another bully yourself. Stop making people feel “disenfranchised” and you'll have less radicalization. /rant
With banks (and other financial institutions), they are one of the endpoints of the encryption, and, therefore, have a key. They don't have to make a "back door". (Why, however, do I feel "less protected" knowing that there is another copy of that key "out there somewhere"?) With phone encryption, the manufacturer is not and endpoint of the communication, so they - properly! - do not have a key. The way it's supposed to work: if LEO show up with a warrent, banks either produce the information or loose their charter; with people, they produce the information or go to jail (for contempt and obstruction). I fail to see the actual problem here. And, using the "banks do it" example, the same avenue already exists for "private communications"!