hopefully Biden will be able to resist it and order the case to be dropped.
I wish he would, and maybe give Edward Snowden amnesty and a medal, then pardon Ross Ulbricht and the countless non-violent drug "offenders" in Federal prisons (and whoever else shouldn't be there), too.
But I am not holding my breath on any of the above. After all, Biden, his veep, and most of his confirmed or nominated Cabinet members are career authoritarians. Authoritarians only like lapdog journalists and people who blow the whistle on the other team.
While Trump frequently called the press "the enemy of the people," Obama (aka Bush the Third) headed up what was probably the most opaque administration ever. Nixon would have been envious. Here are just a few of the links on the first page of a web search for "Obama versus journalists."
Yeah, frequently booting up, typing in passwords, and shutting down is a hassle, and it is time-consuming, but so far it seems that it is just part of the deal if you want anything approaching real security.
Even when they are in complete agreement, which is more often than not, they strive mightily to make it look like a fight. This anti-Section 230 crusade is a prime example of this "faux-partisan" fighting being used to distract from the actual monolithic nature of our government. They are trying to make their blind followers believe that they are doing this for completely different reasons, but the goal is the same: authoritarian censorship.
The CBP rivals the TSA in uselessness. I'm not sure we have any Federal agencies that rival the CBP in despicable deadly violence, thuggish brutality, and large-scale violation of basic human rights and U.S. civil rights.
While there are many Federal agencies that need to go, the CBP should surely be at (or very near) the top of the list. Then, former CBP personnel should be ineligible for any government employment, be it federal, state, local, or subcontract.
Re: Re: I hope the movement continues to gain traction!
Many factors go into a well-functioning market, but a couple of the basic ones are:
1) Supply proportionate to demand. This promotes fair prices for buyers and fair profits for sellers.
2) Appropriate level of competition among sellers. This promotes good selection of quality products at fair prices.
Bottom line: Everyone's reasonably happy, or at least everyone's needs are reasonably well-met, both buyers and sellers.
With no "right-to-repair" there is a monopoly of sorts on repair. This generally breaks both rules listed above. There are no options, so no competition, and supply can be limited relative to demand. This results in high prices, long waits, poor service, etc.
Bottom line: Sellers making excessive profits while not meeting buyer's needs, so buyers are unhappy, therefore market failure, without much, if any, government involvement.
In similar cases, how is the government complicit? Any examples?
Do a search for "telecom" in Techdirt. Government involvement in that prime example of market failure is explained in detail, over and over again. Lack of "right-to-repair" is just a small part of the telecom dumpster fire, but I cannot have my AT&T router repaired, or the firmware upgraded or replaced with a superior version by anyone except AT&T (and even they won't do it). And the router AT&T provides is my only option. And AT&T is my only effective telecom option.
There is a school of thought that holds that prisons and jails should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.
Currently our options to prison and jail are very limited, but that does not mean we cannot come up with new options that are more rehabilitative and less punitive and retributional.
A Federal law would be good, instad of a patchwork of state laws. Limiting repair options can be a real pain for people who live in remote locations. I cannot buy X product because the nearest dealer / repair place is ~200 miles away. This surely hurts the manufacturers, too, but clearly not enough to matter to them, when compared to monopolistic repair revenue.
This is one of very few examples of market failure where government is not directly complicit in that failure. I guess there is some indirect involvement, by government allowing contracts, EULAs, etc to supersede what should be much more basic, non-vaivable rights of ownership.
but somehow I have a feeling that pleading guilty to, and/or being charged with and convicted of, "official misconduct" may be a way to avoid much more serious, and probably more accurate and appropriate, criminal charges.
From the Wikipedia article, it seems that several corrections officers were charged with other, more serious crimes in addition to "official misconduct," but it still seems kind of euphemistic to me.
He should know that when entering a police state one should, at the very least:
Have complete phone encryption.
Have SIM card password in place.
Have phone turned off, requiring actual password to access it (no fingerprint, swipe, or other shortcuts).
He should also know that even with these protections in place, it is likely the government can access his data if they really want to.
A better solution would have been to use a burner phone, encrypt all data and send it to a secure server, preferably one owned and possessed by his law firm, and thoroughly destroy the burner phone before leaving the foreign country.
Passing through the customs of a police state with a powered-up phone that contains privileged data and has a connection to a network that contains even more privileged data is just a really, really bad idea, particularly when some of that privileged data might concern wrongdoing by the customs agency.
Bad on DHS and CBP, but Malik really should have seen this coming. Or maybe he did, and this is just step one in a longer plan to slam DHS and CBP? It is a nice thought, but I doubt that is the case.
Yes! Far too often being fired, resigning, or retiring early is considered "punishment enough" for government officials accused or found guilty of criminal activity. It is nothing of the sort.
Government officials should at least be held to the same standards as the rest of us, and be subjected to trials, and fines and/or imprisonment as appropriate, just as any of us would be.
There is also a strong argument to be made that government officials should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, since they are entrusted with positions of power and authority that the rest of us do not have. With this additional power and authority should come commensurate additional responsibility. This would translate into higher fines and longer prison sentences upon conviction of crimes.
It could also mean that public officials be subject to lower standards of evidence, or "proof" for certain categories of wrongdoing that may not be applicable to the rest of us.
There are already three primary standards our legal system uses: beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence. There is no reason why lower standards of proof, or evidence, should not be used when considering wrongdoing by government officials, and several very good reasons why they should be used.
... refusing to allow those records to be created in the first place.
A local government agency in my area got in some trouble when records requests turned up evidence of wrongdoing. It then quickly came out that those at the top of the agency had then put out the word to subordinates "Don't write anything down."
Using Signal and the disappearing message feature is just the newer-tech, non-paper version of the same thing.
And as Tim pointed out:
Encryption isn't the problem here. It's the sidestepping of obligations to the public
Art Acevedo is one of the last people anyone should be consulting about anything. This guy called his own murderous cops "heroes" while he was Chief of a department filled with murdering, raping, assaulting, thieving, bullying, lying thugs.
Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who hailed the cops who killed Tuttle and Nicholas as "heroes," ...
He should really be the "poster thug" for most of what is wrong with policing in America today. Why he keeps being consulted and interviewed about how to fix policing is very worrisome. It is a scary example of asking a fox how to secure the henhouses.
Once you start making special case "carve outs" there will be no end to it. The simple, straightforward description of rights and responsibilities as they apply to websites and user-generated content that is Section 230 will turn into a nightmarish maze with dangerous minefields that no one will be able to navigate, or even be able to afford to risk trying to navigate, except the Google / Facebook / Twitter types, and even they will be hobbled, as Mike has pointed out.
National security has been indiscriminately used as a weapon by the government for a long time now, to seriously harass and imprison people for no valid reason, to incriminate whistle-blowers, to cover up government crimes and general wrongdoing, etc. It has become a "magic phrase" to enable the implementation of countless authoritarian policies. Regardless of Ben Franklin's original quote or it's meaning at the time, exchanging liberty for a false sense of safety or bogus claims of national security is a bad deal. But, as others have mentioned, there is no end in sight for this dangerous nonsense.
Worse, anyone questioning the government's use of this dangerous weapon stands a good chance of becoming a victim of it.
No, not missing the forest for the trees. The comment was intended just as an aside. I guess I should have made that clear. I think the idea of government issued laptops is a bad idea to begin with, particularly given the British nanny-state / surveillance-state government. Throw in the Brand-X nature of the laptops, and you have double cause for concern.
I think it is extremely fortunate that the malware was immediately detected. According to The Register:
"In all known cases, the malware was detected and removed at the point schools first turned the devices on.
That makes it sound like maybe some pre-installed anti-virus software picked it up, which would indicate a pretty lame attempt at malware propagation, not to mention the fact that the malware was ancient, by malware standards.
All in all, it looks like it was probably just sloppiness on the part of Geo (or whoever) rather than an actual attempt at maliciousness.
I keep a piece of easily removable, opaque masking tape over the webcams of all my computers. Maybe ADT customers should consider this simple privacy measure.
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re:
I wish he would, and maybe give Edward Snowden amnesty and a medal, then pardon Ross Ulbricht and the countless non-violent drug "offenders" in Federal prisons (and whoever else shouldn't be there), too.
But I am not holding my breath on any of the above. After all, Biden, his veep, and most of his confirmed or nominated Cabinet members are career authoritarians. Authoritarians only like lapdog journalists and people who blow the whistle on the other team.
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re:
While Trump frequently called the press "the enemy of the people," Obama (aka Bush the Third) headed up what was probably the most opaque administration ever. Nixon would have been envious. Here are just a few of the links on the first page of a web search for "Obama versus journalists."
On the post: Gun Trafficking Investigation Shows The FBI Is Still Capable Of Accessing Communications On Encrypted Devices
Security v Convenience
Yeah, frequently booting up, typing in passwords, and shutting down is a hassle, and it is time-consuming, but so far it seems that it is just part of the deal if you want anything approaching real security.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Lying Cop No 'Reasonable' Officer Would Think It's OK To Tear Gas Journalists For Performing Journalism
Re: Re:
This is a critically important point, but the Harris-Biden administration is already passing out sleeping pills like candy at Halloween.
On the post: Section 230 Lets Tech Fix Content Moderation Issues. Congress Should Respect That
The R's and D's are more similar than different
Even when they are in complete agreement, which is more often than not, they strive mightily to make it look like a fight. This anti-Section 230 crusade is a prime example of this "faux-partisan" fighting being used to distract from the actual monolithic nature of our government. They are trying to make their blind followers believe that they are doing this for completely different reasons, but the goal is the same: authoritarian censorship.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Lying Cop No 'Reasonable' Officer Would Think It's OK To Tear Gas Journalists For Performing Journalism
Yes, just as "...lying cop..." is in redundancy territory.
On the post: Court Says Lawsuit Over CBP Searches Performed 90 Miles From The Border Can Proceed
CBP needs to go!
The CBP rivals the TSA in uselessness. I'm not sure we have any Federal agencies that rival the CBP in despicable deadly violence, thuggish brutality, and large-scale violation of basic human rights and U.S. civil rights.
While there are many Federal agencies that need to go, the CBP should surely be at (or very near) the top of the list. Then, former CBP personnel should be ineligible for any government employment, be it federal, state, local, or subcontract.
On the post: 14 States Are Now Considering 'Right to Repair' Legislation
Re: Re: I hope the movement continues to gain traction!
Many factors go into a well-functioning market, but a couple of the basic ones are:
1) Supply proportionate to demand. This promotes fair prices for buyers and fair profits for sellers.
2) Appropriate level of competition among sellers. This promotes good selection of quality products at fair prices.
Bottom line: Everyone's reasonably happy, or at least everyone's needs are reasonably well-met, both buyers and sellers.
With no "right-to-repair" there is a monopoly of sorts on repair. This generally breaks both rules listed above. There are no options, so no competition, and supply can be limited relative to demand. This results in high prices, long waits, poor service, etc.
Bottom line: Sellers making excessive profits while not meeting buyer's needs, so buyers are unhappy, therefore market failure, without much, if any, government involvement.
Do a search for "telecom" in Techdirt. Government involvement in that prime example of market failure is explained in detail, over and over again. Lack of "right-to-repair" is just a small part of the telecom dumpster fire, but I cannot have my AT&T router repaired, or the firmware upgraded or replaced with a superior version by anyone except AT&T (and even they won't do it). And the router AT&T provides is my only option. And AT&T is my only effective telecom option.
On the post: After Years Of Ignoring Abuse At A Women's Prison, Department Of Corrections Suspends Nearly Three Dozen Employees
Just a sidebar:
There is a school of thought that holds that prisons and jails should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.
Currently our options to prison and jail are very limited, but that does not mean we cannot come up with new options that are more rehabilitative and less punitive and retributional.
On the post: 14 States Are Now Considering 'Right to Repair' Legislation
I hope the movement continues to gain traction!
A Federal law would be good, instad of a patchwork of state laws. Limiting repair options can be a real pain for people who live in remote locations. I cannot buy X product because the nearest dealer / repair place is ~200 miles away. This surely hurts the manufacturers, too, but clearly not enough to matter to them, when compared to monopolistic repair revenue.
This is one of very few examples of market failure where government is not directly complicit in that failure. I guess there is some indirect involvement, by government allowing contracts, EULAs, etc to supersede what should be much more basic, non-vaivable rights of ownership.
On the post: After Years Of Ignoring Abuse At A Women's Prison, Department Of Corrections Suspends Nearly Three Dozen Employees
It's just a hunch
but somehow I have a feeling that pleading guilty to, and/or being charged with and convicted of, "official misconduct" may be a way to avoid much more serious, and probably more accurate and appropriate, criminal charges.
From the Wikipedia article, it seems that several corrections officers were charged with other, more serious crimes in addition to "official misconduct," but it still seems kind of euphemistic to me.
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
Malik should know better
He should know that when entering a police state one should, at the very least:
Have complete phone encryption.
Have SIM card password in place.
Have phone turned off, requiring actual password to access it (no fingerprint, swipe, or other shortcuts).
He should also know that even with these protections in place, it is likely the government can access his data if they really want to.
A better solution would have been to use a burner phone, encrypt all data and send it to a secure server, preferably one owned and possessed by his law firm, and thoroughly destroy the burner phone before leaving the foreign country.
Passing through the customs of a police state with a powered-up phone that contains privileged data and has a connection to a network that contains even more privileged data is just a really, really bad idea, particularly when some of that privileged data might concern wrongdoing by the customs agency.
Bad on DHS and CBP, but Malik really should have seen this coming. Or maybe he did, and this is just step one in a longer plan to slam DHS and CBP? It is a nice thought, but I doubt that is the case.
On the post: Six More Houston Cops Involved In Deadly Drug Raid Are Now Facing Criminal Charges
Re: 'You can't touch me, I'm on base!'
Yes! Far too often being fired, resigning, or retiring early is considered "punishment enough" for government officials accused or found guilty of criminal activity. It is nothing of the sort.
Government officials should at least be held to the same standards as the rest of us, and be subjected to trials, and fines and/or imprisonment as appropriate, just as any of us would be.
There is also a strong argument to be made that government officials should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, since they are entrusted with positions of power and authority that the rest of us do not have. With this additional power and authority should come commensurate additional responsibility. This would translate into higher fines and longer prison sentences upon conviction of crimes.
It could also mean that public officials be subject to lower standards of evidence, or "proof" for certain categories of wrongdoing that may not be applicable to the rest of us.
There are already three primary standards our legal system uses: beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence. There is no reason why lower standards of proof, or evidence, should not be used when considering wrongdoing by government officials, and several very good reasons why they should be used.
On the post: Michigan State Police Officials Are Dodging Public Records Obligations By Using Encrypted Messaging Apps
Re: Well at least he's consistent...
A local government agency in my area got in some trouble when records requests turned up evidence of wrongdoing. It then quickly came out that those at the top of the agency had then put out the word to subordinates "Don't write anything down."
Using Signal and the disappearing message feature is just the newer-tech, non-paper version of the same thing.
And as Tim pointed out:
On the post: Police Chief Demands Holes In Encryption Because Some Cops Decided To Participate In The DC Insurrection
Re:
Yeah, the Hanlon's Razor grace period expired a long time ago with the government and it's various agencies on the subject of encryption backdoors.
On the post: Police Chief Demands Holes In Encryption Because Some Cops Decided To Participate In The DC Insurrection
Art Acevedo? Really?
Art Acevedo is one of the last people anyone should be consulting about anything. This guy called his own murderous cops "heroes" while he was Chief of a department filled with murdering, raping, assaulting, thieving, bullying, lying thugs.
He should really be the "poster thug" for most of what is wrong with policing in America today. Why he keeps being consulted and interviewed about how to fix policing is very worrisome. It is a scary example of asking a fox how to secure the henhouses.
On the post: Removing Civil Rights Law From Section 230 Will Create Many New Problems, While Failing To Fix Existing Ones
Once you start making special case "carve outs" there will be no end to it. The simple, straightforward description of rights and responsibilities as they apply to websites and user-generated content that is Section 230 will turn into a nightmarish maze with dangerous minefields that no one will be able to navigate, or even be able to afford to risk trying to navigate, except the Google / Facebook / Twitter types, and even they will be hobbled, as Mike has pointed out.
Also, Passover Hagadadahs?
On the post: Papers Please Has Something To Tell You About The 'No Fly' List And It's Going To Make You Sad
National security has been indiscriminately used as a weapon by the government for a long time now, to seriously harass and imprison people for no valid reason, to incriminate whistle-blowers, to cover up government crimes and general wrongdoing, etc. It has become a "magic phrase" to enable the implementation of countless authoritarian policies. Regardless of Ben Franklin's original quote or it's meaning at the time, exchanging liberty for a false sense of safety or bogus claims of national security is a bad deal. But, as others have mentioned, there is no end in sight for this dangerous nonsense.
Worse, anyone questioning the government's use of this dangerous weapon stands a good chance of becoming a victim of it.
On the post: Britain Helps Children Learn From Home By Procuring Them Laptops Preloaded With Russian Malware
Re: Re:
No, not missing the forest for the trees. The comment was intended just as an aside. I guess I should have made that clear. I think the idea of government issued laptops is a bad idea to begin with, particularly given the British nanny-state / surveillance-state government. Throw in the Brand-X nature of the laptops, and you have double cause for concern.
I think it is extremely fortunate that the malware was immediately detected. According to The Register:
That makes it sound like maybe some pre-installed anti-virus software picked it up, which would indicate a pretty lame attempt at malware propagation, not to mention the fact that the malware was ancient, by malware standards.
All in all, it looks like it was probably just sloppiness on the part of Geo (or whoever) rather than an actual attempt at maliciousness.
On the post: Britain Helps Children Learn From Home By Procuring Them Laptops Preloaded With Russian Malware
I keep a piece of easily removable, opaque masking tape over the webcams of all my computers. Maybe ADT customers should consider this simple privacy measure.
Next >>