Maybe if the state of California read the First Amendment, there wouldn't be a need to fine code bootcamp operators.

(Hint: Commercial speech is still speech.)

The card brands call the shots when this much sh!t hits the fan, but, yeah.

Not here. Target's pos pos is homebrew.

If by "don't want to compromise the investigation" they mean "don't want to let the crooks know what we know", they have already failed. Any action to remove material now is simply playing to politics.

Personally, I think the value of publishing the data is higher than not tipping your cards to crooks. They know what they left behind.

Proper forensics protocols state that you NEVER work with the original media, only copies.

Lightning Link: http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html

$20? You're paying too much.

Please enumerate for me the rights "granted" by the Bill of Rights.

(Hint: None. The Bill of Rights hinders actions of the government, not the people.)

Yes, the key is needed to encrypt, but the encrypted PIN block is already encrypted by the card embosser on behalf of the bank. If the merchant passes along the encrypted PIN block as sensitive authentication data to the processor for authorization, the merchant has no need to decrypt.

This, unfortunately, makes the encrypted PIN block more of a password than encrypted data. Cloning cards is still quite possible.

Snowden has made no such claims. The claim originated from a leaked document. He provided the document to journalists. The document speaks for itself.

Is the document genuine? That is an entirely different question. I suspect that it is, though no one at the NSA will say. How do you confirm the authenticity of the document? Well, a simple initial approach may be to consider the accuracy of previous document releases. By that standard, it's genuine.

You mean like Arduino? Or OpenSPARC? As you wish!

Your privacy can be compromised with open hardware, just as easily as with closed.

Freedom I see, however.

But the cops, like everyone else, are free to sample public air however they want. They just can't use it as evidence against you. Still bloody rude.

And grow lights put off infrared. Judge said no.

Know.YOUR.rights.

A dog sniff is not a search. The dog "signal" is now reasonable suspicion, which now allows them to search you for realsie. Of course, the dog is "signaling" to what the cop wants so he can get his search. Catch 22.

Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?

Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.