In addition, the generally crappy value engineered quality of consumer goods will add a lot of noise.

The spectrum they are allocated comes with a mandate to provide a public benefit. They have been allowed some slack on encrypted sub-channels as long as their primary broadcast still meets the public service mandate. If they encrypt that too, they'll be forced to give their allocation back and cease transmitting.

So why did they then pursue it rather than backing off to a safe distance? From the report, it is clear that the drone's operators were attempting to move away to a safe distance when they were pursued.

That is done by looking at how the state of mind drove objective action.

In the case of the murder, we can infer state of mind based on how the murder was accomplished. If the accused shot, stabbed, strangled, then dismembered the victim, we may conclude that death was the intention. Dropped the weapon at the scene, tripped 3 times running away, then threw up in the ally, we can guess it wasn't intended. Took the weapon, the bag the body was placed in, cleaning products that were used to clean up evidence to the scene, then lured the victim, we can infer premeditation.

So now we ask what objective actions at the time he was asked for the password would suggest that he still remembers it?

Quite honestly, courts have in general not paid as much attention to determining state of mind as they should.

We can look at many things to loosely assign a probability to it, but none of those probabilities are likely to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

When it comes down to looking at who is lying in the absense of further evidence, it is known as "he said, she said". Except in extreme cases where one person claims that Elvis and the Grays were all there too, it rarely rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

At most, honest testimony now could say "I think he probably remembers it". Yes, he probably does, but the standard of proof isn't 'probably'.

The thing is, by the time you get to the point of a password being demanded, you have necessarily been put through an ordeal that may have you not thinking clearly. Likely your daily routine where you might have remembered the password is thoroughly disrupted (set and setting is important to memory).

Aero never flip-flopped.. They were TOLD by the court (the same court the broadcasters dragged them in to) that they were a cable company. They have reluctantly accepted the court's word for it. OTOH, the broadcasters felt strongly that Aero was a cable service that they dragged them to court to have it declared true. They got what they wanted and now THEY want to flip-flop on the issue.

It's crazier than that. They know it's rainwater ad claim he stole it by not letting it run off of his land and into the river.

I guess they really like Big Butte and they can not lie.

It seems you didn't RTFA, hate drones, and have a strange neurological condition affecting your knee. Three strikes, you're out!

They do know who the boss is and who his boss is. They know who signs their paychecks. They may not tell, but they know.

With internal CS, there is at least a chance that it is supposed to be more than an impenetrable barrier between the customer and someone with authority.

I know the standard of proof. I also know that where human memory is concerned, short of technology we do not yet have, there can not be proof beyond reasonable doubt that he remembers the password now.

Remember when they found out how incredibly unreliable eye witnesses are? Even the mention of a beard will alter every memory in the room, for example.

Sadly agreed.

I am saying adequate evidence short of a confession (such as a verbal refusal rather than a claim to not remember) cannot exist. Human memory is not subject to objective examination.