Comment Re:Wont be suprised if the US goverment (Score 2) 182
"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.
The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.
We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.
Comment Re:it is destroying evidence like it or not (Score 3, Informative) 182
IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.
Comment Re:If he is found guilty (Score 4, Insightful) 182
There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.
THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.
Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.
The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.
Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.
Comment Re:Oh hell no (Score 1, Flamebait) 45
Comment Re:Most users are oblivious to updating. (Score 1) 106
Comment Avoiding Legal Precedent (Score 1) 64
Comment Re: Oh goody (Score 0) 118
Free speech includes lying.
Comment Re: Still used because 10 is current, right? (Score 1) 106
The difference was almost entirely to FORCIBLY OBSOLETE a ton of perfectly serviceable machines merely because they came with TPM 1.2 or less from the manufacturer, or they had a CPU "not quite new enough," because OEMs were screaming "we need to force people to trash computers and spend money buying new hardware from us."
OEMs started salivating at Apple's "3 year old hardware? Fuck you, throw it in the trash and buy something new" sales model and demanded MS start doing the same thing.
Comment Re:Most users are oblivious to updating. (Score 0) 106
If someone like MachineShedFred is getting a forced reboot in the middle of the day, it's because he's the Dumb Fucking Retard who's been pushing "delay" on the machine over and over and "sleeping" the machine during the mandatory reboot times rather than save his work and pick a sensible moment, and now he's run past the mandatory delay allowance. He's known this reboot was coming, he just chose to IGNORE it and be a whiny little bitch about it.
Most IT departments have no idea how to set up automatic updating properly so that it still gets the job done, but doesn't piss off the users that you can't really piss off...
Most Dumb Fucking Retard Users like MachineShedFred imagine that they are above the requirements that IT have been ordered to apply to everyone, or that they've found some magical "workaround" to the system. I have no sympathy for his bullshittery.