"Beyond immoral" seems to me somewhere between excessive and totally wrongheaded.
Bad advice has consequences and bad legal advice often doubly so. The law is nuanced, convoluted and often unintuitive. People really are better off going to an expert!
He thinks that the majority reached the right conclusion (the result - that the defendants were entitled to the money) but not for the right reason (the particular argument that the majority opinion made)
Deep Space 9 has an arc where a Starfleet officer attempts to launch a coup against the (elected) President of the Federation - we do see an elected leader there, but you're right that it isn't spelled out in much detail.
But is that elected leader elected by people or by representatives? This is where trek and wars meet. They both have a federal approach parralleling the US sennate, reps from individual planets rather than according to population. And the leader is elected by the sennate. So this isnt a government for people and thier rights, but a government of governments more akin to a United Nations with a navy. So there could be a nazi planet and a libertarian planet as how planets govern themselves is irrelevant. Individuals do not have rights under the federal government but through whatever planet they happen to be upon.
There are links to japanese fuedal system, which has a place in the US system whereby the federal government is allocated its own lands apart from the states. "The empire" would be as if washington DC and the US president started annexing state lands.
It's possible that you'll design a safe that the government cannot get into without destroying the contents. We say that the government can do their best to get into that safe if they have a warrant.
There is no requirement that they be able to access the content (building the safe is not illegal), but there is a procedure that lets them try under appropriate conditions. What the parent posters have been talking about is a permission structure like that where law enforcement can try their best. Doesn't force anyone to write software in a particular way.
> On a case-by-case basis, with proper court process, requiring an individual to provide a passcode or thumbprint to unlock a device could assist law enforcement in obtaining critical evidence without undermining the security or privacy of the broader population.
I can write a piece of messaging software which writes one of the following two in a log, without exception: (1) hash of /dev/urandom (2) message history with passphrase encryption
If the government comes to me and asks for my passphrase and I say "I don't have one", how can they prove that I have a passphrase and am in contempt of any lawful order? The only actual way to enforce this is to make it illegal to write software which does (1).
My point is: the reason the quoted parts in the top-level post are ugly is because search warrants should already be sufficient, unless you want to crack down on the ability of citizens to do the above.
What I'm more frightful of, is not knowingly possessing this data but having it planted on me, e.g. a plaintext crypto header with random data, stenographically encoded into a video I'm streaming, stored in my browser cache, and this being discovered when the TSA-equivalent of a country I'm visiting surreptiously scans my HDD (because unless they hide it from me I'd much rather refuse, sit in a booth with angry men for 24 hours and get sent back to my home country).
If not decrypting what looks like random bytes (because that's what good encryption looks like) becomes punishable in a country, it's no longer safe to visit that country with any digital data carriers.
In retrospect the fact that the cable is responsible for making headphones fall out makes so much sense, and I've even experienced it while running, but I hadn't thought of it. Thank you!
I don't think I'm alone in that though, which is great for Apple: if they're working better than expected, then consumers will love it. Expectations are everything.
I think the problem here is more nuanced. The first, cold fusion claim that they made belongs in the almost-certainly-false bucket; the many critiques of the work were decisive and clear. I'm not qualified to assess the merits of this new claim, but putting it in the we-dont-really-know bucket seems appropriate. The issue wasn't a rush to bucket, but not realizing that there was a second claim that needed bucketing.
Texting also became more common with the widespread adoption of smartphones - we'd of course see more accidents as a result, but the medium became massively more useful to a lot more people.
There most certainly is. You've pointed out some exceptions but do you really think that on the whole they're not correlated? Having more money means people can afford to dress better and are more likely to travel in circles in which dressing well is important.
This may be a bad thing, but it's a reality that people are attuned to - it's a useful heuristic even though it's imperfect. Should you treat people badly because of it? No, but you shouldn't treat them badly even if you were 100% sure they weren't wealthy. That's a separate problem.
Okay, but ask yourself if that's an actual correlation or an imagined one based on customs and psychological factors. (Which is my point.)
The assertion was that "there is a relationship," without any sort of qualification. I'm saying that relationship only exists because of the belief itself and if we all stopped believing it tomorrow, there would be no relationship any longer. So it's not really a correlation at all and only an imaginary one that has largely built itself up on conditioning, upbringing, and so on.
I'm not saying you're wrong nor denying a tenuous correlation, I'm saying it's faulty to assume a correlation where one only exists due to external factors, and that leads to the problems that both you and I point out with the correlation.
Similarly, money provides no power in society to the person controlling it. Because if we all stopped believing that it would continue to work in the future, it wouldn't.
... This is an obviously incorrect argument! There are things that occur only because of widespread belief. Nevertheless, those things do occur!
Bad advice has consequences and bad legal advice often doubly so. The law is nuanced, convoluted and often unintuitive. People really are better off going to an expert!