Oh I see what happened. I replied to the wrong comment. No wonder I'm so confused. Sorry.

I didn't write that carefully enough. I also didn't read the parent closely enough. I meant they would have expected their IP was not publicly exposed. I think was really responding more to a comment on the parent post than on the parent post itself. My bad. Been a long day.

This should not be modded insightful. They used the seized server to inject malware on users' computers to unmask them. They were accessing the site via a Tor hidden service, so their IP was not exposed.

Here's the undergrad responsible, it seems. https://around.uoregon.edu/con...

This is the PI. I'm afraid it looks "legit". https://honors.uoregon.edu/fac...

This is the only good explanation I've seen of what the order is about: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... As long as Apple can install a signed update on the device without decrypting it first, this will be possible. They need to remedy that quickly.

Too bad the people that believe in social services and those that strongly support gun rights are few and far between. I'm one of them. Doesn't earn me a lot of friends in either the blue or red camps.

If you're going to troll, at least you're funny about it.

You suppose that a complex mechanism has only one point of failure?

Just how large of a problem is this scenario, to mandate introduction of extra points of failure into guns? Do you really think it's going to outweigh the situation parent is talking about?

You're conflating a bunch of different issues.

First, police already use level 2 or level 3 retention holsters. They should also have retention training. Yes, sometimes their guns still are grabbed, but it is it enough of a problem to mandate so-called smart guns for all? That's the end-game here as New Jersey's law has shown.

As for cars, you're mixing improved crash resilience and collision detection systems (while it makes sense that they help I've seen no actual data on it) with all sorts of entertainment electronics and sensor information merely being relayed to the driver.

As I said, there are plenty of ways to secure guns in place, even biometric locks. Once the gun is unlocked and holstered, though, I want it to fire every time I pull the trigger. Regardless of which hand I hold it with. Regardless of whether some accessory device is present and functional. Without the need for a battery.

People sell, trade, or make safe queens out of any gun that won't function reliably intended for defensive use. For some people one malfunction in 2000 trigger pulls is too much. It's unnecessary to add extra points of failure.

Expect to see pushback from the agencies saddled with these. It's a solution in search of a problem -- there are already myriad ways to secure guns. We don't need a bunch of extra points of failure built into the guns themselves.

You have extremely fine-grained software control over what does and does not reach the machine.

"This is not like a tenant being responsible for what they do in their building, over which they have a high degree of control"

Have you ever used S3? That is almost exactly what it is like.

MOD PARENT UP, this is exactly it.