We can look at many things to loosely assign a probability to it, but none of those probabilities are likely to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

When it comes down to looking at who is lying in the absense of further evidence, it is known as "he said, she said". Except in extreme cases where one person claims that Elvis and the Grays were all there too, it rarely rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

At most, honest testimony now could say "I think he probably remembers it". Yes, he probably does, but the standard of proof isn't 'probably'.

The thing is, by the time you get to the point of a password being demanded, you have necessarily been put through an ordeal that may have you not thinking clearly. Likely your daily routine where you might have remembered the password is thoroughly disrupted (set and setting is important to memory).

It says in the article (iirc, read it a few days ago) that this was a problem a few years ago but now is mostly licked. So I'm not sure why it's coming up today.

Aero never flip-flopped.. They were TOLD by the court (the same court the broadcasters dragged them in to) that they were a cable company. They have reluctantly accepted the court's word for it. OTOH, the broadcasters felt strongly that Aero was a cable service that they dragged them to court to have it declared true. They got what they wanted and now THEY want to flip-flop on the issue.

It's crazier than that. They know it's rainwater ad claim he stole it by not letting it run off of his land and into the river.

I guess they really like Big Butte and they can not lie.

It seems you didn't RTFA, hate drones, and have a strange neurological condition affecting your knee. Three strikes, you're out!

They do know who the boss is and who his boss is. They know who signs their paychecks. They may not tell, but they know.

With internal CS, there is at least a chance that it is supposed to be more than an impenetrable barrier between the customer and someone with authority.

I know the standard of proof. I also know that where human memory is concerned, short of technology we do not yet have, there can not be proof beyond reasonable doubt that he remembers the password now.

Remember when they found out how incredibly unreliable eye witnesses are? Even the mention of a beard will alter every memory in the room, for example.

Sadly agreed.

I am saying adequate evidence short of a confession (such as a verbal refusal rather than a claim to not remember) cannot exist. Human memory is not subject to objective examination.

Dr. Sbaitso doesn't live onboard, though. You need a standalone sb card to tell him anything you want, anything at all...

As intrusive as the Google Glass has proven to be, it will only be worse when observation recording tech is more difficult to detect.

I disagree. The exact opposite: when people stop noticing, they will stop caring. It won't be perceived as intrusive anymore, and people will be less annoyed by it.

It's the conspicuousness of the camera in Google Glass, the constant reminder that you might be recorded, that makes most people feel creeped out. For the previous decade leading up to that product, nobody cared about small+cheap camera tech itself. And people walk/drive by fixed-position cameras all the time, and don't give a fuck there either. Peoples's behavior shows that "intrusiveness" happens when a cameras looks like a camera, and I suspect it also has something to do with being face-level, literally "in your face" and you're making eye contact with it, unlike the case with less conspicuous cameras. It was never about privacy; it's some aspect of self-consciousness kind of related to privacy, but a different thing.

You might say "maybe you, but I sure care. Hell yes it's about privacy." Of course you say that. I'm talking about how people behave and the emotions they display. Not their innermost secret thoughts that they are always terrified to express in voting booths or policy decisions, yet are happy to speak of on the Internet.

You know, the Internet, where they don't have a camera in their face making them all self-conscious! The Internet, where instead of a terrifying 1x1 pixel image that makes you think "WTF is that? That's weird! Are you watching me?" you now instead see a bunch of "like buttons" which are obviously for liking things, not getting your browser to send a request to an unrelated tracking server.

In addition, there's a certain inevitability about it all. The cameras have been there a long time, there are more today, and there will be even more tomorrow. You can't do anything about it, except stay at home. So you'll either accept or you'll go insane and get selected out. You'll handle it. (Contrast that to Google Glass, the one small camera out of the hundreds out there, that you actually recognize and is also rare enough that there's little social cost to shunning. With GG you can refuse to accept and also stay within social norms, so GG is different.)

I once had a baby rattle (when I was a baby). Why is it reasonable to presume I still have it in my possession? I can't prove that I don't since you can't prove a negative.

As for 3b, he told them his best recollection of the password and it didn't unlock the drive. So there we go, where is the proff that he does correctly remember the key but chose not to tell them?

There may be indications and reasons to suspect, but the standard for jailing someone is proof. Where memory is involved, there can never be proof. At least not with today's technology.