Actually, the idea that there would be a problem because of the "states rights" issue is probably not there. The federal government is granted control over inter-state commerce by the constitution. State laws that control what abilities cell phones have in that state and ban them if they allow "illegal functions" would almost certainly fall under the federal governments inter-state commerce jurisdiction. The federal government has used the commerce clause for much less obvious issues. Actually the federal government routinely uses the commerce clause as an end-run around other constitutional restrictions.
Posts by Mark Quesnell
12 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Jun 2008
US Congress locks and loads three anti-encryption bullets
Australian government urges holidaymakers to kill two-factor auth
Of course it was on purpose. If the government (not just Australia either) can convince it's citizens that security and privacy needs to be forfeited in the name of convenience then they may be able to get them to use a lower level of such security and expect less privacy. Of course that makes them more vulnerable to the bad guys - but the point as far as the government is concerned is that it makes it easier for them to access your information with less complaining on your part. It's just another take on the governments mantra that personal security and privacy needs to be sacrificed on the alter of government surveillance.
Juniper's VPN security hole is proof that govt backdoors are bonkers
For the most part the politicians and law enforcement types are not going to care. For the majority of them, as long as they get what they want they're not going to worry about the attendant repercussions. They will probably be in the camp of "the ends justify the means" and if your private data gets hacked by the bad guys then too bad, we got what we wanted.
AMD sued: Number of Bulldozer cores in its chips is a lie, allegedly
NSA spying is illegal? Then let's make it law, say Republicans
Nice headline. I suppose that the fact that there are Democrat supporters of this idiotic law would be bad to point out. Senator Diane Feinstein (a Democrat) says the program is OK and that the judge was/is wrong. I guess it doesn't make as good a headline to note that both liberal and conservative idiots are supporting this infringement on Americans constitutional rights.
Apple's Tim Cook and Salesforce's Marc Benioff DECLARE WAR on anti-gay Indiana
I find the arguments that discriminating is wrong in and of itself very compelling. I also find the comparison of racial discrimination vs. LGBT discrimination semi-correct. But I also feel that, since the US Federal government has the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and several states already have laws very similar to this one, that it is not the terrible, horrible world destroying thing all these commentators describe. None of those laws have resulted in any sort of massive discrimination against LGBTs. There is no proof of discrimination, just a bunch of feelings and opinions. And, unlike the comparison to racial segregation - where it was very widespread and unavoidable, this is small and confined to the minor group that feel their religion requires it of them (however misguided that is). This does not result in the group being denied access to a service - for every 1 business that uses their religion to deny service there are hundreds of others that don't. If it is such a big deal then the forces of economics will eventually cause these businesses to disappear.
And the Constitution of the US specifically protects the right to practice your religion without excessive government intrusion (the 1st Amendment). That makes any claim of being forced to violate your religious beliefs by the government very compelling in US courts - hence the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case.
Based on the existence of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the existence of multiple pre-existing similar laws (including at the federal level), no valid evidence of any kind that these laws actually created any sort of high-level discrimination (or low-level for that matter), and the existence of a large number of competing businesses who will gladly accept the business that was denied by the "religious views" ones, I think all this "oh my God, the sky is falling and the LGBT people are all going to be put into internment camps" to be a bunch of overreacting - some if it natural, and some of it planned in order to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.
Dongle bingle makes two MEELLION cars open to exploit
I'm not an expert on the CAN bus, but it seems to me that if the only purpose of this dongle is to record data for insurance purposes it should have been designed to be "read only" off of the bus. Then there wouldn't be any issue about taking control of the car. Why even hook up any write lines for a function like this? I understand it needs to be able to query the bus for information - but that is way different from putting data on the bus and issuing a write command.
There would still be the issue of the logged data being easily available though.
UK student faces extradition to US after piracy case ruling
grow some balls
I am in the US. I don't particularly like the way we are going in regards to the way my supposed government is treating an individual. We are supposed to be founded on individual rights over the government ( at least if those rights are protected by the constitution). The Brits need to grow some balls and tell the US to bug off. If it isn't a crime over there then you shouldn't be extraditing one of your citizens over here. Tell that judge to go to hell.
Samsung may try to block next iPhone in Europe too
copying? How crazy can you get. All smart phones basically look the same - same as tablets. Exactly how many designs are there to make a "tablet" - and how different would they be? This is a problem with the EU for letting a company patent a "look" - no matter how generic. Not to mention that Apple stole the ipad design from previous designs both in movies and by other companies.
Police force more suspects to give up crypto keys
plausible deniability
This is one of the reasons to use truecrypt if you don't want the authorities to pry through your stuff. With it's encrypted within encrypted security it allows plausible deniability - if you don't want them seeing your stuff, but don't want to go to jail for not giving them your password, encrypt it twice and only give them the first password and deny any other password exists
Apple accused of hushing up security update
fanbois to the rescue
Beaker - you were right - it didn't take long for the fanbois to rush to Apples rescue. Saying "I don't want/need to run anti-malware software" is sticking their heads in the sand as deep as China. OSX is not inherently safer than Win Vista or Win 7. As a matter of fact at the last 2 hackers conventions the OSX computers were hacked faster than the Windows machines.
But don't let facts get in the way of an Apple supporter - otherwise they'd never buy Apple again. And then they'd lose out on the joy of having Steve Jobs tell them what they can and can't do with the hardware they bought and own.
YouTube rant missus hauled into court
RE: free speech etc.
You might have the right and ability to say anything you want, but you will have to face the consequences. People are saying that if the statements are true then they aren't libel or slander. That might be true, but there still can be consequences - especially if you are going through a divorce with children. Just say something bad about your "soon to be insignificant" other in front of the children and see what a judge can say about it. The consequences very well could effect your visitation/custody rights - even if what you said is true.