Because who knows what 'extras' might have been included when they were made in China.
I argue there cannot be enough evidence to discount that a person cannot recall the password. It's just too common an occurrence and there are simply too many factors that contribute to forgetting going on.
As for the examples you mention: i) Did the adviser have a professional duty to get that information right? Would getting it wrong constitute professional ma[practice? Is there an email or other document that suggests they had the correct information? Did they give other clients the correct information? Did it happen more than once?
But in general, if that's all the evidence you have, one client given wrong information once, it'll never see the inside of a courtroom.
ii. Was the car obviously beyond the means of the driver? Did the driver offer anything like a plausible explanation? Even with that, it likely wouldn't be prosecuted. OTOH, if multiple people heard them talking about it being stolen, they might actually prosecute it.
iii) If he kept two books, they'll likely prosecute. If not, it's doubtful.
More realistically, for i they won't even look in to it unless the client is wealthy. In ii they'll 'find' a baggie. In 3, they might use that as probable cause to search his files.
Note now that i would have to involve incriminating communications or a pattern of behavior. ii would likely not happen unles the cops are crooked, and 3 would involve physical evidence.
The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not probably. How would you feel about going to jail based on 'probably'?
Remember how Snowden should have raised his concerns with his superiors within the NSA?
Remember how no such communication could be found?
Remember how one such communication was released but did not seem to be raising direct concerns?
Well some record of e-mail communications seems to exist but they are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act."
Link to Original Source
With each accusation, the NSA has 'admitted' to a small bit and denied the rest. Each denial has been proven to be a lie. They have proven now that nothing they say can ever be trusted. They have lied under oath. They have lied to Congress, and they have lied to the People. Repeatedly.
Since we can never trust anything they say, why should we continue to employ them? The entire organization is rotten to the core. The only possible cure is to disband them and start over. A mere re-org would just be moving the deck chairs.
Such an act is a really big deal. Do you advocate that it be taken in haste?
Perhaps the U.S. should also declare the iPhone to be a security threat.
What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.
If a bolt of lightning hits it, that cable will vaporize. And in fact, many of them are not at all that well grounded.
Link to Original Source
Alas, no. Your suggestions would determine that he knew it before he was arrested, none suggest his on-going memory of the password.
It's harder because the other questions only have to look at state of mind for a particular moment in the past before police activity could have influenced it.
This is closer to Heisenberg. The act of questioning can cause the accused to forget. That is exactly why this is a screwed up law.
Have you truly never heard someone say "If you hadn't asked, I could have told you?"
You've never known anyone who can type their password by muscle memory but cannot consciously call it out other than by watching themselves type it?
There are a great many factors that can confound memory and all must be ruled out to eliminate reasonable doubt. Furthermore because memory can be malleable and tricky, even evidence that he later recalled the password isn't evidence that he could recall it when asked. It's actually common for an answer to pop into mind once all pressure to remember has passed.
OTOH, there's really only one reason to arrange to meet someone in an out of the way place and take a gun, gloves, and a body bag with you. The prosecution and the judge don't have to determine what the defendant is thinking NOW.
Link to Original Source
Why yes, I did eat pork and beans, asparagus and eggs for breakfast, why do you ask?
So instead of killing one planeload of people, kill the ten planeloads waiting at the checkpoint? Bad trade.
If the static voltage is high enough, you don't need to complete a circuit to ground to have a significant current flow. Capacitive effects are more than adequate to give you quite a shock.