Of course you can be compelled to open your safe. Refusal is interfering with an investigation, obstruction, subject to contempt citation, et cetera.

And in the case of encryption keys where there is a valid warrant (which won't be issued for an open-ended "we think something illegal might be there but don't know what" request), the situation is the same. You aren't testifying against yourself when you surrender evidence, in the case that the state can make a reasonable argument that it knows where and what the evidence is.

The state can't compel you to "give us everything you have so that we can look for something illegal, even though we don't know what to look for or where it is." That's an entirely separate issue and is both an illegal seizure and, if related to a prosecution, possibly a Fifth Amendment violation as well. In other words, the state can ask and require you to cooperate in this situation:

"We have reason to believe that the computer you possess that contained numerous references to bomb-making materials and which we seized as part of your arrest for illegal possession of destructive devices CONTAINS encrypted files with additional relevant information. What are the encryption keys for this data?"

The state can't ask you to answer these questions:

"Have you ever been involved in terrorist activities?" (-- self incrimination)

"Do you have any data in your possession that relates to terrorist activities?" (-- also self incrimination)

"Although we found no evidence of terrorist activities when we conducted a search of your home, and no one in the investigation mentioned your involvement, we wonder if there might be evidence of illegal activities hidden on your computer. Give us the encryption keys." (-- no probable cause)

"We have been searching every 10th computer brought into this Federal building as a matter of routine. Give us the encryption keys." (-- no probable cause although you could be refused entry in most cases.)

Turning over evidence in your possession is not the same as testifying.

Earlier this year, a Vermont court found that a Canadian man's refusal to provide encryption keys for data on his laptop was not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

http://web20.nixonpeabody.com/np20/np20blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=298

This really isn't any different than a situation where a witness or suspect is required to open a safe, provide account numbers, et cetera. In general the state can't "fish" for evidence (say, seize a laptop just to see if it contains anything of interest, without a specific goal in mind), but if there is a reasonable belief that a search will produce evidence that pertains to the charges at hand, the state has the right to conduct the search and compel a defendant to cooperate.

You can always refuse anyway.

I wish I could mod this up today.

So, I understand that people might feel like Google is scanning your library card every time you borrow a book. But the thing is, in order to return more relevant results for your searches, Google (or whoever) needs to know what sort of things you typically look for. You know, like the librarian who tells you that there's a new book on adult stuffed animals.

Relevant search and anonymous search: Pick one.

That is ENTIRELY untrue. H1-B labor is hired to replace "equivalently skilled" domestic labor. As far as an American worker is concerned, H1-B employees only parasitize the job market.

The fact that H1-B holders often wind up in worker bee positions that American workers would be reluctant to take is simply abusive of both H1-B holders *and* Americans. The H1-Bs should be greatly reduced in number, and American developers should have working conditions that distinguish them from worker bees.

People who call themselves Americans are campaigning for more H1-B visas when US employment is scratching 10 percent.

Amazing.

This is the sort of thing that makes me want to be a labor organizer. For all their faults, at least unions aren't just plain anti-American.

I went with Verizon because their coverage in San Francisco is respectable (some providers have major empty areas), their voice quality is very good (AT&T being amazingly bad), as a business-oriented carrier they tend to have more technological clues, and ... wait for it ... they're not AT&T!

AT&T is actually the reason I don't have an iPhone. That and my desire to avoid anything that is a hipster fad.

Hopefully Verizon will be cheaper and simpler one of these days but who knows. For now they suck less.

Well that's the way it's supposed to work with any EV-DO phone, and that's how it works with my Centro ... but there are major stability problems with Apple's Bluetooth DUN.

I got a Centro a little while back and *Verizon* is A-OK with tethering. A short while before that I got a dongle but I hardly ever use it now, because Bluetooth tethering is so convenient.

Verizon doesn't support its tethering software on Mac OS X, but, no worries, you can set Bluetooth dialing up yourself.

BTW The Mac OS X EVDO script is terrible and broken. There's a MUCH better one floating around (I forget exactly which but I think it's the "PCS Intel EV-DO Modem Script"). Also, OS X's pppd likes to hang the computer occasionally (requiring a power button reboot), and Bluetooth dialing in general is flaky. But that's not Verizon's fault!

Tethering really is a killer smartphone app. Too bad providers are so self-centered, unimaginative, and stuck in the past that they can't let owners use it.

So I'll keep using my Centro with all its warts and random reboots, until, however many years from now, Verizon offers a better option.

But they can.

The wildly optimistic estimates I've seen have been $600k per "gas" station, and I don't believe those for a second.

"What they need to work on is a cheaper way to generate electricity."

Which of course you could just put into batteries.

It's about time this was submarined. I don't know what kind of craziness has led to the obsession with fuel cells. Not only is there no hydrogen distribution infrastructure of any kind, but fuel cells still haven't gotten out of the spaceship era.

We'll be driving cars on Mr. Fusion power before we drive them on fuel cells, unless someone gets fuel cells that use something other than hydrogen working in a way that's suitable for automotive use.

If you have a problem with collisions on a protocol newer 802.11a/b, then it's a problem with your equipment, not the channels your neighbors select. g and n get along fine with other devices sharing frequencies. Anyway, base stations channel hop all on their own.