Not only that, but if the seat is unoccupied when they're ready to close the doors, they can let a passenger on if the flight is overbooked, saving the airline both a seat on the next flight, and whatever compensation they had to offer the passenger who would have missed his flight because it was overbooked.

If you had read the article you link to (and I just did) you'd see that it does not conclude the same thing you do. Instead the article points out that it is far from a settled question on whether or not a defendant or suspect can be compelled to decrypt files. The Supreme Court has yet to deal with that issue directly, and the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue have adopted a standard in which the government must first show they know the location and existence of encrypted data. If they've seized a suspect's phone, they certainly can know these two things, so the Fifth Amendment, under that analysis, would offer no real protection.

I just read the entire article and the author forgot one other solution: the British solution Instead of putting the burden on app developers to include backdoors, or on Google to block apps that don't, put the burden on end users to turn over their keys to police when asked. I'm not saying I like this solution, but it is a solution the author of the article didn't consider. If you make the sentence for non-cooperation long enough, it doesn't really matter if the police find what they're looking for: they can just lock you up for not handing over the keys.

"Keeping the plebs from making easy copies" would be a huge victory for the movie industry. There will always be some piracy, but the piracy the Industry fears most is that which occurs solely in the home, without the use of file sharing sites, cause it is ultimately the hardest to police.

Especially if she then went on a whole food diet and it didn't cure her cancer!

YES! The colon produces methane which is a fuel and could be used in some kind of fuel cell, perhaps. It's a win-win: you'd fart less and not have to remember passwords!

Three things. 1. The Officer noticed a very strong scent of air freshener in the car when he approached, which is common in cases where people are trying to mask odors. 2. The two occupants of the vehicle both appeared quite nervous. 3. When questioned about their travel plans, the reasons given were fairly implausable: they claimed they were driving back to Omaha, Nebraska from Norfolk, Nebraska after checking out a vehicle that they were considering purchasing, this was suspicious according to the officer for various reasons including the fact that the vehicle's occupants admitted having not seen a picture of the vehicle and they drove for two hours late at night to look at it. These three things, taken separately, would probably not arise to the level of causing reasonable suspicion, but taken together it seems reasonable that they would.

That is simply not true. Read the opinion linked to the in summary. The finding is solely based on the fact that the duration of the traffic stop was increased while the officer waited for backup to arrive before conducting the dog sniff. The question of whether or not dog sniffs require reasonable suspicion or probable cause during a traffic stop was already decided in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407, a case cited in the present opinion, and it was found that no reasonable suspicion or probable cause was required unless, according to Caballes: the stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission.” (That mission being to deal with the traffic violation.)

Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

Since they generally leave a note on the door, I assume they actually did make a delivery attempt.

This story was posted yesterday. http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

Does this only apply to cellphones which are regulated telecommunications devices? Or would it also apply to tablets, which are really personal computing devices? And if it applies to tablets, would it apply to other personal computing devices such as laptops and desktop PCs? And if so, does it only apply to encryption software sold with the device, or also to third-party supplied encryption software? And if it does apply to 3rd party software, does it only apply to commercial software, or free open source software as well? Are there 1st Amendment issues involved in regulating the distribution of free software, and if so do they apply only to compiled machine code, or to source code as well? The devil is in the details and I'm not really sure where dividing lines would be drawn.

Actually, stings like this may prevent actual attacks from occurring by providing a deterrent. Would you join such a conspiracy if your co-conspirators might be FBI agents? Operations like these send a message out to would-be terrorists: you're not safe planning attacks in this country.

What if you just have your phone turned off when you drive, or don't take it with you in the first place? Maybe the insurance savings are even substantial enough that you can get a second phone and only take the phone with this app on short trips and drive on those trips very carefully. When you want to do your street racing, you bring the other phone.

No one yet. As the summary states, this finding was by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, not a court. The next step would be for the Canadian version of the Justice Department (probably a Crown Attorney's office) to decide if criminal laws were violated and if so whether they want to press charges. If they do, there would then be a trial. So we're a long way away from anyone going to jail. I'm not sure if the Privacy Commissioner has the power to levy fines, but if so, they could certainly be challenged in court.