But those things would definitely add to his appeal with the current generation. :)

The problem, as I see it, is that without access to their network, the population they are sworn to protect cannot verify for themselves the legitimacy of the need to secure the system on an ongoing basis.

The US Constitution grants US citizens certain rights for observing the behaviors of the State, and the monitoring of police scanners is an important, unbiased tool for that observation.

A better solution would be for the police to adopt the digital radios, but then rebroadcast their transmissions on the existing frequencies after, say, a five-minute delay. That would give the police the immediate protection they are seeking, without completely removing the citizen's right to the same protection.

... which makes the fact that the Judge ruled from the bench even more telling. It means that the Judge thought the evidence presented was so obvious, so unmistakable, and so overwhelmingly in favor of one side that further, reasoned review was unnecessary.

Judges rarely reach those conclusions.

... and both to behave like the typical adolescent.

Don't do that. Problem solved.

Any hard drive that is protected by a simple "password" encryption wouldn't withstand ordinary decryption means. Which suggests that the user had a REAL password, which they would be unlikely to "forget" due to its complexity and the value of the data it protects.

So the "I forgot" defense won't work for long. And I'm guessing a little PITA time will jog the defendant's memory, regardless.

I doubt SCOTUS would hear this case, since it's a pretty straightforward situation that they would, with 99.9% certainty, agree with the judge on. It's common sense to anyone who understands this kind of stuff.

Of course, that won't stop the tinfoil-hat crowd from freaking out about it anyway.

Where do YOU live, Somalia? Either that, or you don't understand the laws you are living under wherever you are.

The judge's ruling in this case is perfectly reasonable, and in conformance with the US Constitution and US law. And common sense.

I'm not a USA law fanboi, but I have worked around enough GOOD lawyers (there actually are a few), and witnessed enough ACTUAL legal proceedings, to understand just how balanced and fair our system is. This "news" story really isn't news at all, except to someone who really doesn't understand the bigger picture here.

... while under oath.

Yes, I find that perspective troubling too. Seems like at least PART of the savings coming from reduced licensing costs for non-FOSS software could be used to fund the transition away from same.

The comment suggests to me a lack of clarity in the motivation for the transition. Money shouldn't be the only incentive, of course (I find the other upsides to a FOSS environment to be much more compelling), but anyone who understands the current state of affairs for software licensing would be reasonably expected to acknowledge that in a discussion about moving away from it.