Right, but I have put a Google account on the device. I hope the device protection is still optional. Since I'm already using encryption, I'm not sure the device protection will add much security. Will a thief return my device when they discover they can't use it?

So, how do you explain the fact that the RSA public key encryption algorithm was patented for 20 years?

Are you aware there is a fee of somewhere around $10,000 USD to renounce your citizenship, plus any back taxes and penalties you may owe? Also, you are required to file U.S. tax returns even if you make ZERO income if you have any money at all in a non-U.S. bank account. The U.S. is one of the few countries that requires you to file tax returns in that case even if you don't owe any taxes. And they have been enforcing this rule: a lot of Canadians found themselves owing huge amounts of money in penalties to the IRS for failing to file these returns even though they didn't owe any U.S. taxes, and many of these people didn't consider themselves to be U.S. citizens and weren't even aware that the U.S. considered them to be citizens till they got their tax bill.

Effectively they can by revoking citizenship, which they can do for security reasons. There has to be a hearing, of course; a customs officer can't do that unilaterally, but the end result can be Canadian citizens being denied entry into Canada.

I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It means that if you willfully commit an act, and that act happens to be illegal, then you are criminally liable even if you didn't know the act in question is illegal. That is to say, you don't have to have to form an intent to break the law, you merely have to form an intent (and act on that intent) to commit some action, and that action has to be illegal.

What's at issue here isn't ignorance of the law, but ignorance of the facts, and that, oftentimes, is an excuse. Although possession of child pornography is illegal in most jurisdictions, almost all the statues generally say something along the lines of "it is unlawful to knowingly possess...". There is a very practical reason for this: absent the word "knowingly", anyone could simply e-mail anyone else some images that are illegal, and the recipient could be criminally liable for possession even if they hit the delete key immediately upon seeing it. Defendants could e-mail such images to prosecutors and judges and said prosecutors and judges would be guilty of the same crime the defendant is accused of.

So it is very relevant here whether or not the owners, administrators, or employees of the data storage service knew that they were storing child pornography.

I don't think they have to prove actual knowledge if your activities facilitated the crime. I think they need only prove a lesser "subjective test": that is "would a reasonable person have known that their work was facilitating crime?". This kind of reasonable person test is commonly used so that people can't use a "blind eye" defense. Willfully turning a blind eye to criminal activity doesn't absolve you if you were actively participating.

Not directly, but it does facilitate infringement which is what is needed in a conspiracy charge. It's similar to working as receptionist for a hit man or something like that. If your job activities facilitate crime, you can be charged.

You sound like one of those pro-vaccine people. Do you want our phones to all get autism?

No, but at least they could be caught and stopped for defying those regulations hopefully before they do too much damage. If you don't even have those regulations in place, then you can't really do anything but watch and wait for them to do something more serious.

Exactly right! What a lot of people don't understand is that the First Sale Doctrine is a defense not an offense. In other words, if you buy a copyrighted item, like a book, and resell it, the First Sale Doctrine protects you from getting successfully sued by the copyright holder for doing so. In other words, it is a defense. It does not however, put any obligations on the publisher to provide any support to ensure that these later customers can use the product. I'm not saying Ubisoft is doing the right thing here, but this really has nothing to do with the First Sale Doctrine.

Actually they can and have done so in the past, primarily in the field of cryptography, a field for which quantum computers might have important applications, so his fears are not unfounded.

Actually, it's the kids who are fucked. Sometimes literally, as children are much more likely to be sexually abused in a foster home than by real parents. (That's not to say MOST foster parents abuse kids; they don't. Most are very good people. But kids are statistically more likely to be abused in that way by non-parental guardians than by parents.)

True, unfortunately, it also reinforces the lesson that mistrusting authority can get your kids taken away, even if only temporarily. This can be very traumatic for many kids.