Yeppers, this guy is a shitbag. Most organic food hawkers are shitbags.

Because the rednecks would use them as target practice.

Hey, hold my beer!

No needs to âoefigure outâ how to do that. Anyone who builds DIY drones could do it without a second thought.

Petzold wrote a neat book called 'code' that spends a lot of time on telegraphs and how the relays they used became the transistors in modern computers.

You are correct -- they don't give two shits about any party. They are just marketing towards the folks who will fall for this sort of thing.

So you honestly think that if I made you two bowls of whipped cream, one with your buzzword compliant HWC and the other with whatever crap I could get down at the poor people grocery store that you could actually tell the difference?

Ari Fleischer.

No idea if I spelled that right. I am a pretty average joe.

Cities are a terrible place to try to grow food. Spend the money doing it where the results are worth the effort. This is almost as bad as solar panels street surfaces.

Sounds like it makes sense to me

Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn

This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.

The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)

Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?

This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.

a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD

The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.

They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.

This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant

It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

So you think supporting the validity of a warrant that was issued prior to the search to be subversive?

Let's examine that, let's see

Oh, they did have a warrant.

So you've demonstrated a second example where someone was willfully infringing on a patent and got sued for it.

Good job.