I'm not aware of a FreeBSD foundation or a NetBSD foundation. The Linux Foundation, however, is a consortium that includes several large companies and has individuals experienced with bridging gaps between big corporations and communities. It's also worth remembering that the Linux foundation arose from the merger of Open Source Development Labs and Free Standards Group. When you take in that context, it makes a lot more sense.
I don't know whether or not they smelled it, but I do have doubts, and I have personally experienced a cop adamantly claiming that he smelled marijuana in a vehicle that has never, to my knowledge, had any marijuana in it. My bigger point is doubting the credibility of this supposedly anonymous tip. The level of detail she had seems highly suspect, and there's no indication that he was actually impaired or driving erratically. I know that if I had 30 lbs of weed in my car, I would attempt to be an especially careful and courteous driver. So, it seems very likely to me that this anonymous tip didn't come from someone truly anonymous, but someone acting on the behalf of a three letter agency. We know that they do things like this, and it seems to have too much dumb luck involved to consider that the more likely sequence of events was some random woman being run off the road.
It's a technique known to be used, there's not a particularly good reason for her to remain anonymous, and she has an unusual amount of data that appears to be accurate. People who are actually almost run off the road are absolutely horrible at getting make and model, let alone license plate. It would be quite a coincidence that an unimpaired drug dealing driver ran a female Rain Man off the road while he was carrying 30 lbs of weed. However, we know that our government engages in this activity, and to keep as many hands clean as possible and reduce the risk of losing the case due to fruit of the poisonous tree, an anonymous tip on an unrelated crime would be a perfect seed for parallel construction.
The tip was not reliable. They found no evidence of erratic driving behavior, which points towards this actually being parallel construction. They had illegal evidence, and needed to craft a legal justification for a search.
Only if you could prove that they didn't think they smelled weed. That's pretty tough, especially since they could reasonably attribute it to something else.
I would think that someone with 30 lbs is taking measures to contain the smell, although in all fairness, I have never been in a vehicle with 30 lbs of marijuana. I would think that smoking in the car would be the sign that is actually triggered most of the time, followed by those with personal usage bags that are poorly sealed.
Or more likely, a government agent with information obtained illegally.
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
It likely depends upon how you define 'major crime.' Random searches are probably identifying more people transporting drugs, but aren't catching murderers, thieves, rapists, embezzlers, human traffickers, or anyone engaging in assault.
The problem is that we know that this case seems likely to be one of parallel construction. There's a good chance this 'anonymous woman' worked for a three letter agency and had obtained unlawful evidence. Since that wouldn't be admissible in court, she called the local police, said that someone "forced her off the road *wink wink nudge nudge*", and she was able to present an unusual amount of detailed information for someone who was just run off the road.
Funny how their sense of smell works. They can recognize a potent marijuana smell in a vehicle that has never contained marijuana if the occupants look like they smell like marijuana.
I understand the industry a bit, I also understand that there's no technological reason why a peering relationship has to be symmetrical. I understand that, in practice, it usually is or is fairly close, and that business models work on that assumption, but there's no technologically compelling reason that they have to be, or why such a relationship would be an actual problem. It's largely a bizarre holdover from telephones when operators had to physically switch connections.
There's no reason that the flow of traffic has to be symmetrical. Netflix wants this to happen, and so do Comcast's customers. If Comcast was really upset about that, they would give their customers symmetrical connections.
Of course Rhesus monkeys can do math, how could we have Rhesus positive and Rhesus negative blood types if they couldn't?
Our surveillance society is a huge risk to our well being in regards to our physical, economic, and social liberty. It's pretty damn important.