If the candidates were open and transparent AND if voters only cared about ability to govern, then no one could influence the election. But that isn't going to happen. But labor unions by far and away have the largest influence vector for elections, followed by large corporations. Large corporations by the amount of money they contribute, usually have more influence on a continuing basis, but often hedge their bets by donating to both sides in the election. Lately though some large entities (I'm looking at you Facebook!) have stopped any pretense of neutral news reporting and might as well be looked upon as strictly aligned with particular candidates. Labor unions strongly influence elections by the sheer number of their Sheeple following the edicts of their labor union "bosses". Not to say all do, but a large enough number to sway some elections. If all candidates where required to be open and transparent and there was a mechanism to expose when they weren't and if so called fact finding organizations where unbiased and not supportive of any particular candidate, and news organizations were actually news organizations, not thinly veneered arms of entities with a political agenda then the voters would be presented with a neutral view that was unbiased to choose from. Foreign governments influence on American elections is a "red" herring. The domestic influencers actually do influence the outcome.

Separate IMDB into the promotional site and the informational site; spin the informational site off as a 501(c(3)) non-profit. Make the for profit promotional site a permanent trustee and committed donor to the informational site, while IMDB-Pro operates as a for profit site. Even if denied federal non-profit status, they'd still be separate and exempt from the California law, IMNALO (In My Not A Lawyer Opinion)... They might consult some lawyers to see if that's viable. Alternately do what other corporations do when presented a hostile environment by a state. Move and that the jobs out of state.

Just remember that the rule before Save the Passenger or Save the Crowd is the very most important rule:

Save the Cheerleader; Save the World.

Not to mention he is representing Apple, who built the iOS App store mainly on free content and content where Apple drove the market cost to new lows for software. And for content with a price, took an unprecedented 30% of gross revenue. Apple set the stage for lowering the bar and abuse of content providers. Now, I actually like Apple. And they opened the door for many software projects that would not otherwise have been done. Much as You Tube opened the door for many starting artists. If this yipping dog artist has a copyright complaint, better to voice it to You Tube administration and get it taken down. But ... statistics have shown that leaked free content results in larger sales. So complain about the "piracy" all the way to the bank.

This ranks up there with the most idiotic statement recently made by someone in the music industry.

Not so limited as you might think. Just knows all of them. iPhone 4S is still supported with the current iOS as is the iPad 2. So iPhone 4S 5 5S 5C 6 6S 6+ and 6S+ plus iPad 2 3 Air Air2 Pro(12) Pro(9). So 14 models not counting CDMA and market variants which add more sub variations. Oh and on the iPad side, with cellular and without. So in some cases the base model could have 4 variants, or more.

The Android problem is low margins to get market share, and no incentive for the diverse manufacturers to update beyond the peak sales repurchase cycle. And some makers are just pitiful. Amazon Fire Phone comes to mind, my Android mobile device test rig with so much promise, and next to no delivery. When updates were produced they lagged a full major Android release.

Since they now will publish vulnerabilities they know, and which have been fixed, and how they determine what is important to fix!!!

Don't train your replacements. If unionized, strike. maybe strike anyway.

Second immediately go to competing media and take out ads advising the public what is happening. write editorials for other media.

Talk to your government representatives about the American press being outsourced to India.

Then explain to management about a cable equipment supplier in Pennsylvania that was going bankrupt. At the last moment a "White Knight" appeared. During the phase of doing do diligence they discovered that there IT and IT development was outsourced to India. The White Knight who was bailing them out, they dropped the offer as the little cable company in trouble actually owned very very little at that point that they had control over... And the WK didn't want to be dependent on outsourced IT were they no longer even had the current source or databases in the US.

The information is the real value, hold it in a third parties hands overseas, and you court disaster. This is not to say that overseas outsourcing is inherently bad, just non tech companies do a horrible job providing for contingencies and keeping domestic...

Well, some powerful legal scholars and the court cases they describe disagree and state that in this exact predicament the 5th does apply. The so called Fischer test fails on point 3 and the burden is on the government. They warn that if this were not the case one could be jailed for contempt, and that is exactly what happened in this case. Likely the incarcerated lawyer did not push this hard enough, or the judge chose to ignore it. But without all the details we may fall short of the understanding needed to make an argument one way or the other. But understanding this person may not know, may have forgotten, or some other individual may have applied the FileVault passphrase, or may just be such a willful person (and two years makes that self evident) that he will never reveal the passphrase if he knows it; he should be released. The current zeal the courts are using to make encryption a worthless technology is unwarranted. Least people think this is a new problem, read the paper from the above link. Thomas Jefferson invented an encryption for mailed messages that was not broken for 100 years apparently. this problem is not modern at all and has been tested in courts since the beginnings of the U.S.A.

Consider if this hard drive contains emails between this defendant and his lawyer, thus privileged communications. Or contains material related to confidential informants. Disclosure in open court could be disastrous ... and in the former would violate the defendants rights in yet another way.

We have lost sight of the American concept that it is better to let a dozen guilty people go free that to jail one innocent man. Our prisons have uncounted numbers of innocents, some lucky enough to have people interested in freeing them to preserver until they are vindicated. Some innocents die having exhausted all appeals and they are executed. It is very sobering to look at The Innocence Project and understand many of these people lost decades behind bars while innocent.

The privilege of not testifying against a family member is only extended to the spouse. The feeling is that because of the intimate relationship they are likely to share all aspects of their life, so are for this purpose the same entity. They may however voluntarily testify against their spouse, unlike lawyers and doctors whose privilege is based on professional ethics. But, say, someone's brother is called to testify, they can be compelled to do so.

I suggest that a higher court does not release him, but rather orders the lower court judge to withdraw the contempt charge as inappropriate. Then if the lower court judge fails to comply, that judge will be in contempt and they can share a cell. Interesting test of the lower court judge's conviction.

We'll be watching you
Every breath you take and every move you make
Every law you break, every browser you take (We'll be watching you)
Every single day and every suit you lay (We'll be watching you)

This company makes so many wrong moves and has set such precedent for losses I would hope every wrongfully blocked browser results in punitive damages in the hundreds of thousands for willfully violating the law and violating the computers integrity of those wrongfully blocked. There is federal law to turn on them for a change. They will have 'damaged' the affected computers without due process or service. and the demand for money puts them in the category of racketeering subject to RICO in my opinion.

Or if an update while locked was not able to be forced on the phone, and also wiped the secure key.

if your answering machine required a passphrase to access the recordings, you could not be compelled to give up that passcode. But is is more convoluted than that. They are compelling your neighbor who built the answering machine, to give up the means to bypass the mechanism that "mission impossible's" the tape (held in a illicit way access to the tape destroys it). The FBI presumes it is possible. The FBI is pretty sure there is no useful information on the phone. The FBI booted one when the lawful owner was asked to change the Apple password associated with the phone. (They could have put the phone in a faraday cage on a charger as another person here suggested). And the FBI lied saying it would only apply to this one phone, and that it was no seeking a precedence setting rule. And one federal judge has already ruled in a similar case the Writs Act doesn't apply and Apple can't be compelled.

Apple US will become a design studio for Apple (insert best tax benefit country). All sales revenue will then go through that country. And considering some jurisdictions treatment of security is more sacrosanct than that of the US, given the incentives that having Apple development take place there would bring said country, Apple would move development there as well. Apple US would have a skeletal staff. The cost in US taxes and jobs would be substantial. Then Apple offshore profits then would be in part from US phone sales.

Court orders in these area are usually specific in that they release any and all tools to build the target software. They also frown on shenanigans like stripping all the comments and randomizing the variable and class names. But they do allow that it be accessed in a secure manner. So the DOJ could be required to have staff work in a locked room where Apple controls entry and exit, and that no electronic devices are allowed in that room. Only paper and pencil for notes and copies of those (since this is protective rather than adversarial) could be compelled to be allowed to be copied by Apple. It could be so strict that an Apple employee might be the only one to access the built image and convey it to a separate testing lab. I've been in such a restrictive environment and even my electronic watch (with no i/o, but marked "electronic" for the movement) stayed in a bag outside my work area.