Isn't it past your bedtime in Moscow?
This is the sort of thing that calls for a system where judicial review distinguishes between two levels of "unconstitutional":
1. The garden-variety "eh, it was a judgment call anybody could legitimately get wrong", with the same effect as the current system (the law is struck down with no other effects).
2. The guy/gal who drafted this law, who was obviously staring at a classmate's boobs/abs during Civics 101 class, needs to have a point put on his politican license, with some threshold (three strikes and your're out?) for permanent ineligibility for political office.
This is somewhat ironic given these officials' resistance to using other methods, like cellphone-cracking tools or approaching third parties for data and communications. According to the FBI (in particular), these solutions "don't scale."
This objection gives away the real agenda. Solutions that require significant investment of time and effort for each individual target work just fine for legitimate surveillance (i.e. surveillance authorized by warrant based on specific grounds for suspicion). The fact that these solutions "don't scale" is simply not a problem... unless the government's real intention is to conduct mass surveillance.
"Would you like a backdoor to the cops' phones that only Internal Affairs can access?"
The goons in blue would crucify him for that.
He (either Haas or Trump, whichever) holds a hand consisting of a three of clubs, an Old Maid, a Mille Bornes "Out of Gas", a Magic: The Gathering "Swamp", and a Tarot "Fool".
I guess he's like the old lady in "Goodbye Lenin".
Nonsense. Slim and serviceable are easily combined (using the normal-person definition of "slim", not marketing BS that pretends that everything is bloated unless you can use the edge to make thousands of julienne fries in seconds).
Never mind all the other reasons Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's name has been in the news lately
There are a couple of silver linings to the Tangerine-Tinged Twit's feud with the FBI. First, and more obviously, it makes it harder for them to push bad policy objectives like this. Second, by sucking all the oxygen out of the room it impedes their ability to spread a mass-media narrative (i.e. "ONOZ Terraists Will Kill U If We Can't Spy On U!!1!"), thus effectively amplifying the more sober and intellectual discussions (none of which support the agency's position).
Memo to Congressional Democrats: The predictions of a "Blue Wave" in November are not based on enduring physical phenomena like tides and eclipses. They are based on the likelihood that voters in November will continue to be pissed off at the Trumpanzee while not becoming likewise pissed off at you. If you insist on pissing away the latter, don't come running to me for an explanation of "what happened?!"
there's no way the law can even be considered a close call in terms of the Constitution
What this country needs is a provision for judicial ruling that goes beyond "un-Constitutional" (but within the realm where it could be an honest mistake) and encompasses "deliberate violation of the responsible lawmakers' oath to uphold the Constitution", with sanctions (three strikes and you're out, perhaps) for at least the sponsors and perhaps everyone who voted for a blatantly un-Constitutional law.
The real problem is that the Chinese spyware interferes with the NSA spyware.
If he sues for defamation, he leaves himself and his whole crew open to subpoenas digging for evidence that Bannon's statements aren't defamatory because they're true.
There's no reason "reasonably waterproof" and "replaceable battery" should be mutually exclusive; rubber gaskets are hardly an exotic experimental technology.
It all comes down to marketing departments insisting that you want a phone thin enough that you can use its edge to make thousands of julienne fries in seconds.
Speaking of angry toddlers... I've heard that the real reason for this push is that Mueller's investigation has gotten stuck because of smartphone encryption. Pass it on!
The "physical presence" for a Bluetooth lock can look a lot more like "hanging around in nearby fiddling with your smartphone" than "directly poking and prodding at the door lock". Given that the main practical deterrent of most door locks is to put burglars at some risk of getting caught at the latter, that's a significant difference.
Rosenstein is steering everyone towards his new term "responsible encryption"
All the more reason to keep repeating the correct term "backdoor" and emphasize that a deliberately designed backdoor is essentially identical to an accidentally created one (e.g. KRACK) except insofar as the former is easier to find (everybody knows that the backdoor key exists and where to find it) and exploit.
If we aren't willing to give up anything, we are going to lose everything.This is precisely backwards. Each concession simply becomes the starting point for the next series of demands. A hard "no" is the only "Dane repellent" that works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: