If you can do that, then you could do the same thing with a mobile passport, in a future where everyone knows how to consume them. Assuming a proper implementation of a mobile passport, it would contain all the same data as your paper passport and would be digitally-signed by the issuer to prove authenticity and origin. Both paper and mobile passports should perfectly usable offline... though both could be checked online. I suppose the odds of a mobile passport being checked online might be higher, and a paper passport might be more durable if you need it to last a long time, though expiration would be a problem in both cases.

In reality, if you found yourself in this sort of situation your best best would be to sneak into Canada or Mexico and ask for asylum. If things were to get as bad as rsilvergun assumes, it would be granted.

The mobile driving license standard does not require you to hand your phone over, and indeed it wouldn't help the cop if you did because he'd have to hand it right back so you could unlock before it would send any data. It delivers the data to the copy wirelessly, via NFC, BLE or Wifi, depending on the context. What's on the screen (either a QR code or nothing) does not identify you or prove your driving privileges, so it's useless to the cop, intentionally so.

I was involved in the development and standardization of the mobile driving license standard and in the process spent some time talking to cops from a few jurisdictions. Interestingly to me, the response from the cops was universal: They would strongly object to anything that would require them to touch your phone. Of course, I was talking to the higher-ups and their concern was the liability that would be incurred if a lot of their officers broke peoples' thousand-dollar phones. Individual cops might have different perspectives, but their commanders thought it was way too risky.

As for passports, IMO any useful mobile passport should work the same: No handing over of the device, indeed the protocol should ensure that the device must be in the user's hand to present the passport.

Someday we'll probably get an international standard for mobile passports, but it's not happening any time soon.

Until recently I worked for Google, on Android, and participated in the International Standards Organization (ISO) committee that would be tasked with defining the technical standard for mobile passports. To be clear, the ISO committee can't actually issue such a standard, passports are standardized through ICAO. But the relevant ICAO committee delegates the technical work to an ISO committee.

The current situation in those committees is that the companies who make passport booklets and passport acceptance infrastructure are successfully fending off attempts to define a standard to enable mobile passports. They have gotten a new standard (called the "Digital Travel Credential - Physical Component", DTC-PC) approved that allegedly facilitates mobile devices with passports but isn't actually usable. Apple has refused to implement it and Google isn't making any moves to support it (though someone could write an Android app that does; all of the necessary APIs are available).

One of the main sticking points is that the ICAO committee is currently specifying that any digital travel credential should not support data minimization, meaning the ability to present just a subset of the data. More precisely, they specify that data minimization is a non-goal, but since a protocol that supports retrieving and authenticating a subset of the data without leaking any of the un-presented data is always going to be a lot more complex than a protocol that sends the entire data set in a single signed blob, any technical proposal that supports data minimization will be shot down as needlessly complex.

The ICAO's position on data minimization is that the only use of travel credentials is presentation at border checkpoints, and at border checkpoints you always have to present all of the data, so data minimization support is unnecessary. The counterargument from many people is that passports are used in many contexts other than border checkpoints, and many of those other contexts don't need and therefore shouldn't get all of the data in the passport. Since both Google and Apple insist on data minimization as an essential feature, there's not much movement happening.

My guess is that it will take 2-3 years to break the current logjam on even beginning work on a real, usable standard, then another few years to define it and put it into effect, then a few years more for most border checkpoints to accept it, and perhaps a few years beyond that for people to become sufficiently confident in their mobile devices' reliability that they will travel without a paper passport booklet. So... 20 years or so.

The work with the TSA is on derived credentials that are based on your passport (and securely authenticated), using a protocol derived from the ISO 18013-5 mobile driving license standard. It does support data minimization and looks a lot like what an eventual passport protocol should look like (IMNSHO -- note that I designed big chunks of the 18013-5 standard), but will not be accepted at any border checkpoints.

A paper passport doesn't increase your odds of getting out. All passports are verified electronically by the airlines and TSA. If there's a flag on your passport it doesn't matter whether it's in your phone wallet or in your hand.

Sort of. System updates originate from Google but flow through the OEM, which is contractually obligated to validate them and then push them out. Apps and some system services (Play services, a collection of security-related system components, etc.) are updated directly by Google.

The expectation for Android Automotive is that systems will have a 15-20 year support lifespan. I think there are even contractual obligations mandating the lower end of that range. So I don't think you keep your vehicles long enough for it to be an issue.

Unless you derive great satisfaction from housework, why would you not want a robot to do it for you so you can spend your time on things you enjoy?

I think the honest answer to this is "find another career". I'm not sure software engineering is a good choice today. But, really, I'm not sure what is.

But FictionPimp and others refusing to take advantage of the tools that have become available won't stop the transition. Junior engineers are going to have to find something else, they can't rely on their older colleagues to protect their jobs.

Uh, no. Center of gravity isn't related to how high the driver sits.

Ah, I see, you think they should use low-floor buses. Those are a lot more expensive, have higher maintenance costs (especially the kneeling ones), require flatter terrain (buses don't go offroading, but where I live they can't stay on the pavement all the time and also have to contend with deep snow), and give up seating capacity because the wheel wells and rear engine intrude into the seating are. Their only real advantage is accessibility. City bus systems can't predict where disabled people will be, so all buses have to be accessible.

School districts, on the other hand, do know where the disabled kids are so it's much more cost effective to buy and operate less expensive buses for moving the 95% of the kids who can climb stairs and to operate a separate fleet of smaller buses equipped for accessibility to pick up the disabled kids. So, they save the money on buses and spend it instead on teachers and classrooms.

As a taxpayer and a parent and grandparent, I think that's the right choice.

Okay... but what does that have to do with the center of gravity? And those sticks are just as important for rear-engine buses as for front-engine buses, though they probably don't have to be quite as long.

In Utah I don't think I've seen one of those for at least 20 years, and they were rare before that.

No, you don't. I'm sure I follow that a lot closer than you do. Any claims that the federal judiciary is already captured are just silly. SCOTUS is an issue, but look at all of the rulings against Trump. Even the appellate opinions that the news calls as in favor of Trump are basically all just staying the district injunctions until the merits are decided, and if you read the opinions, not just the headlines, you'll see they're almost always extremely skeptical on the merits.

Honestly, even SCOTUS isn't quite as captured as a lot of people on both sides think. They also seem to be giving Trump his way on the procedural issues, but almost always come down against him on the merits.

The ~900 federal judges in the system are almost universally apolitical, thoughtful and fair. There are exceptions, and Trump is working to get more of them in there, but the judiciary is very far from captured.

Interesting. What stick are you talking about? I'm talking about the thin plastic tube that hinges out from the front passenger corner and blocks kids from being able to walk in front of the bus. It clearly can't have anything to do with center of gravity or stability; you can bend it with one finger (it springs back).

Also, all the buses where I live (in the US) are rear engine and have flat fronts.

You didn't actually read the method, I think. In order for corruption to "build up around it", the entire (or at least most of) the federal judiciary would have to be corrupted. While that's not impossible, if it happens we'd have much bigger problems than pardons. And the fact that the judiciary isn't already irredeemably corrupt is strong counter-evidence, because the benefits of corrupting the courts are far bigger than the benefits of corrupting the pardon system.

I think the reasons the pardon power was given to the president still make sense, so abolishing it is a step too far. Instead, it should just be weakened a little, probably by adding a review by a non-partisan review board plus a limit on the number of pardons a president may issue. The review board shouldn't try to decide if the pardons are "correct", but only whether there is a presidential conflict of interest.

The question of what something like this should look like was interesting to me, so I had a long conversation with Claude to collaboratively design a solution. The high level of the proposal is:

1. If someone files an objection within 30 days, the pardon is reviewed by a 9-member panel of judges selected algorithmically from all sitting federal judges. Unobjected pardons sail through.
2. Reviews must be completed within 60 days or the pardon is automatically upheld.
3. The panel examines the pardon for evidence of presidential impropriety, mainly conflicts of interest. The president can file counterarguments to objections.
4. If 6 of the 9 judges vote to overturn the pardon, it's voided.
5. If the president has three or more pardons voided during a term, the burden shifts and pardons are void unless a majority of the panel approves them.
6. To prevent the president from flooding the judiciary to exploit the time limit to get his pardons through, a given judge's queue of reviews is limited to n = 16. Any assigned pardon above this limit automatically receives a vote to void the pardon.

The selection algorithm Claude proposed (after some refinement) struck me as brilliant: use HMAC-SHA-256(pardon_id || date_of_first_filed_objection) to generate a sequence of judge IDs to fill the panel. It's publicly verifiable and hard to game, providing an essentially randomly-selected pool. The president can try to game it by ordering the pardons to use the pardon_id value to pick a "friendly" panel, but opposing parties can also game it by picking the day they file... and both sides have very limited options, so gaming it effectively will be possible, but hard, and rarely successful.

Some other important bits: Objections may be filed by anyone but are filed under oath and bad faith objections are also subject to sanctions and contempt orders by the panel. Successful bad faith objections may also expose the objector to civil suits by the failed pardonee. Pardons take effect automatically on day 31 if no objections are filed and on day 61 if the panel doesn't collect enough votes for a disposition. Pardonees who are in custody may demand a hearing to request conditional release. The judge will evalaute their request based on the nature of their alleged offense, their risk of flight and the apparent likelihood that the pardon has the appearance of impropriety, and will decide whether the pardonee should be held or released, and on what conditions.

I think this would work quite well.