Comment Armin Ronacher's blog post (Score 2) 324
Unintended Affordances
(or why I believe encrypting everything is a bad idea) is worth a read on this.
I am not sure I agree on every point, but it's well thought out post.
Unintended Affordances
(or why I believe encrypting everything is a bad idea) is worth a read on this.
I am not sure I agree on every point, but it's well thought out post.
corps will include this in the TOS that everyone agrees to without reading
With the law in place, including it in the TOS would be superfluous.
in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks
Much survived because of monks, but if my history is right (and it's probably not) the enlightenment came from knowledge that survived via the Arabs. Hence we have names like Algebra (from Al-Jabr), for example.
I am seem to recall that during the dark ages the Romans/Italians had around 2-5% literacy rate. Not much knowledge survived there.
There was progression by monks during the middle ages, notably time-keeping and eyeglasses. But I am not sure how much historical knowledge was retained by them. It might be lots - but I've just not seen any historical books to that effect (though I would enjoy reading knowing more).
... is so common that Wikipedia has its own page dedicated to it.
(I am copying a prior post of mine, but I think it bears repeating)
A flight officer should be able to engage a "defer to ground" mode from anywhere on the plane, at any time. Once "defer to ground" mode is engaged the autopilot cannot be disabled without the approval of an air traffic controller, or the consent of more than one (or more than two) flight officer(s). The air traffic controllers can then issue instructions to the autopilot or remotely control the plane or disable the "defer to ground" autopilot.
If the plane is out of range of air traffic control, the autopilot would (in addition to attempting to stabilize any descent) change trajectory to either a.) the closest known safe ground relay or b.) the closest known safe landing site.
In the ordinary course the pilots are in control, with "defer to ground" off by default, and can only be enabled by flight officers on the plane, so the plane cannot be compromised by malicious ATC.
Where you can stand accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of children for decades with no impact on your job whatsoever
The secure door was not well thought out, IMHO. I have always thought there were better options, such as:
A flight officer should be able to engage a "defer to ground" mode from anywhere on the plane, at any time. Once "defer to ground" mode is engaged the autopilot cannot be disabled without the approval of an air traffic controller, or the consent of more than one (or more than two) flight officer(s). The air traffic controllers can then issue instructions to the autopilot or remotely control the plane or disable the "defer to ground" autopilot.
If the plane is out of range of air traffic control, the autopilot would (in addition to attempting to stabilize any descent) change trajectory to either a.) the closest known safe ground relay or b.) the closest known safe landing site.
In the ordinary course the pilots are in control, with "defer to ground" off by default, and can only be enabled by flight officers on the plane.
Just a thought.
123. In sum, I am satisfied that TekSavvy has proven a total of $21,557.50 as its legal costs, administrative costs, and disbursements of abiding with the Order.
2. Those costs were not as much as demanded by TekSavvy.
129.
For details about the costs that were asked and awarded and the reasoning for such, have a look at para. 113 and following. e.g.
119. Under this heading, TekSavvy seeks to recover the sum of $81,524.12 for expenses
incurred in communicating with affected and non-affected subscribers and the public; creating an
online portal tool for the use of subscribers; and responding to a higher volume of inquiries and
complaints
Whether one thinks this is being "let off the hook" is up to the reader, and also irrelevant to the decision. This is a comprehensive, precedent-setting, non-trivial decision accounting for a multitude of legal and factual variables. I, for one, find it consistent with the tone and spirit of the prior decision, largely agreeable, in this case.
The tact a lawyer is generally obliged to take is: advise the border guard that the information on the laptop is not controlled by the lawyer, and that the lawyer does not have the authority to give up the password.
A lawyer holds client information under the protection of solicitor-client privilege, and cannot be compelled even by court order to disclose that information, save exceptional circumstances (crossing a border not being one of those).
As a lawyer, the examples I keep in my back pocket if I am asked by a border guard to give up a password, after explaining the above, include: What if I represented a member of the border patrol in a potential dispute against their employer? Or a dispute between the border service and another branch of government? With my password, the border service could obtain access to communication that gives them an unfair edge, or perhaps inflames what would be an otherwise docile dispute. More importantly: would you or your colleagues, as border guards, seek the advice of and speak candidly with a lawyer about a potential dispute when you know that your employer might well be reading it?
Privilege lives high atop the field of concerns for lawyers, because anything that puts a chill on the communication with and advice of lawyers undermines the rule of law. Among other problems, not having rule of law puts a damper on the legal business, though it has historically been good for the hired-goons business.
The US and Canadian border guard in my experience steer respectfully clear of privilege.
The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.