Back in the teens we found a couple of instances where political actors were encouraging people to install screen savers or cryptocurrency wallets that turned their phones into reverse proxies. This was thought to be specifically for the sake of giving hostile foreign operations (read: Russia) access to U.S. domestic politics.

The fact that smart TVs are facilitating this is just ... we're going to need home networks that treat IoT stuff as different than our actual systems.

Oh, wait, TP-Link had well over half the U.S. router market, but they're getting banned over national security concerns?

Maybe there's a market for a router with traffic accounting as a service so one can see what's happening?

This is why the only device in my house with internet is a Roku. I simply will not tolerate the rest of that invasive junk.

Humidity is currently 91% in Yangsan.

The call centers are going to be decimated ... but so will the AI replacements meant to talk to humans.

I have a number of issues this morning that require calls. First, deal with PG&E about changing the billing for my new house. The I need to talk to my bank about banning Google from ever billing me again. I absolutely HATE changing doctors, but had to do it, because getting to Antioch, then into the city, is just ridiculous from here, so it's time for first appointment.

I would love to be able to just give Claude a list of administrivia like that and let it plow through the work. I see progress on agent related billing, I see Cloudflare doing stuff for an internet dominated by agents ... everyone in the industrialized world is going to have an AI adjutant to handle this stuff. I really hope the old military term "dog robber" gets revived as a way to describe them.

There's an obvious bubble, the circular dealings among the large core players are an enormous red flag.

The frontier labs are in the same position that DEC and Sun Microsystems were in the 1990s, as consumer hardware running Linux began to displace them. There will be ups and downs, but the trend is unavoidable.

The productivity gains are not there, AI is great for coding, some customer service is working, but the "50% of all white collar workers" that the frontier labs thought was good positioning last year 1) ain't gonna work but it did 2) infuriate the managerial class.

The frontier labs got away with it, thus far, in part because of concerns over the arrival of artificial general intelligence, which occupies a similar niche to nuclear weapons in the minds of policy makers. We ARE seeing frontier models escaping and attacking others, there ARE hazards, but it's nothing like what was imagined.

And the open models plus wild talent are as much a danger as wild talent was all on its own.

The frontier labs are like the coyote in that last moment when he's windmilling wildly, but not falling yet.

The good should not be an excuse to introduce a bunch of bad, even if the good still outweighs it. The bad should be rigorously minimized. I am not against such cameras, under certain conditions:
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, insufficient benefit or too much opportunity for abuse means the system will no longer be used for that particular use case.
3) Ironclad security to ensure none of this data ever gets out.
And 0) Those limitations on use should be tested against a more fundamental set of (ethical) rules, to ensure that the use is not expanded from "protect the children" to "auto-fine jaywalkers".

Only problem is that I wouldn't trust most governments to get any of these points right.

Someone needs to launch a national campaign educating people on jury nullification.

The property damage laws are not really the sort of thing nullification is meant for, it's supposed to quickly put an end to the effect of bad laws, but if that's the one tool handy, and it's this much of a social issue, it should be put to work.

"Needs more Excel training" should not be the answer to any problem.

What the hell is that? Is that a salesman in PC-speak?

This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.

City Council member of a non-listed Twin Cities suburb I know:

FBI is involved. Most water systems use one of two control/alert systems that are old and make them easy targets.

All they did was shut down components of the systems e.g., wells/sewer lift stations. Most cities were able to cycle manually to get back up and running. There was not messages warning or ransom of which I am aware.

They could have done a lot more damage if they wanted to, rather than just shutting things down.

I live in Plymouth; there was no city communications about this nor did I see any issues. So, I assume there were no physical disruptions to service.

Would he have handed over the phone unasked and volunteered the password? Unlikely.
As far as I know, the phone behaves in a certain way when you enter the duress password. So it seems established that that is the password he provided. And at that point, it doesn’t matter if he wiped the phone earlier or not, that fact can no longer be established, and that alone would count under the (expanded interpretation of) that law.
Yes, we make assumptions. We’re not in court, we’re on the internet. Speculating on whether the state does or does not have a solid case. That is all.

The duress deletion function was always obviously and transparently going to get treated as obstruction of justice issue the minute it got used in a high profile case. Here we are.

If you don't want to have trouble at the border, wipe your devices before you get anywhere near, and restore them once you are across. The precursors to this event have been in the news for years - the border is a legal gray zone, act accordingly.

I have mixed feeling here - sad for this kid, whomever he may be. Once again annoyed at the activist/NGO world for not training up to the point they can dodge this *easily* avoided problem. And I'm leaning forward in anticipation of being able to point and laugh at any crypto enthusiasts who make comically implausible arguments about these simple facts.

WIPE YOUR DEVICES BEFORE CROSSING THE BORDER.

Is that clear enough?

Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there?
They demanded the phone, and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable. At that point it does not matter whether the phone did or did not contain anything incriminating, according to the article 18 U.S.C. 2232 he was charged with.

It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different. Customs officers can search your stuff (including your phone) without a warrant, probable cause or even suspicion.

He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he?
He is not, even at the border. Refusal can lead to refused entry, though. But once he gave the duress password, he effectively caused the phone's decryption keys to be wiped, and the aforementioned article kicks in.

The real question is whether or not wiping a phone constitutes "destruction of property" as mentioned in that article of law. By the letter, it does not. But data seems to be "property" in the spirit of this law. Similar to eating a physical letter before the cops get a chance to read it. Guess this is what is about to be tested in court.