This effectively means border patrol can do whatever they want in areas that do not involve a border crossing and involve citizens just living their normal lives
Note also that that 100 miles _is a radius around your nearest international airport_ and need not be what you think of as a border, i.e. a line drawn between two land masses.
This is not correct, it’s a common but false misunderstanding. The text of the law does not support this and the ACLU/EFF don’t see it as a likely problem.
People should stop repeating this claim or it will become one of those “folk truths” that eventually becomes accepted and real.
You are correct; I was wrong on this one! I’d read it so many times and far enough back, coupled with DHS’s general attitude of “we’ll do what we want”, that I’d taken it as true. Delighted not to be right here.
As a legal matter, it's an open question. The purpose of the lawsuit is to get the courts to officially rule on this matter because it's far reaching implications for the future of free speech on the Internet.
As a practical matter though, it's completely unenforceable in the US.
No. Extradition generally can only occur over conduct that is criminal in both jurisdictions and speech in particular is protected in US extradition agreements.
There is no EU law that mandates "all messaging must be intercepted and monitored."
There is no EU law mandating permanent, non-disableable cameras and microphones in cars.
ProtectEU is not a law, not related to email and does not demand any "backdoors."
The AI Act bans real-time facial/biometric recognition in public places... which is a good thing. It does not "legalize AI surveillance"... quite the opposite.
EMFA does not authorize the deployment of spyware and they have publicly condemned the use of Pegasus specifically.
There is always a citizen who honestly thinks that emperor is good and loves the citizens. The reality is that emperor loves the citizens that love the emperor and will do everything to find and destroy the citizens that don’t love the emperor. History books are full of such examples.
Right now I am repairing old car that does not track me, does not film me and doesn’t try to drive me. It’s a such a great joy to drive it without stupid beeping and automatic wheel movements. Especially without suicidal steering in construction sites when the modern system fails.
Chat Control - a) it is a law, mandatory in whole EU (because it is a "EU Regulation", and that is a law); b) I was indeed to broad and made a mistake, for now only not E2EE messages must be intercepted and monitored. E2EE is on a the chopping block in Chat Control 2.0 which is being drafted, in progress.
Advanced Driver Distraction Warning (ADDW) - a) it is EU Regulation and so it is a law; b) ADDW mandates a non-disableable surveillance camera (not sure about microphone) inside a car.
ProtectEU is indeed Chat Control plus extra, so here I was incorrect. Encrypted emails are temporarily safe, until Chat Control 2.0 is passed. And given how they bruteforced CC 1.0 in multiple blatant retries, it will eventually pass.
Regarding EU AI Act you are replying to something I didn't write. Sure it doesn't allow real-time surveillance. I wrote that it does allow surveillance over the recorded materials. This technicality allows passing all video through storage, then monitor suspects via AI programs all without judicial approvals.
And finally EMFA does authorize deployment of the spyware against journalists in cases of investigating a crime carrying 3= years penalty. Do I need to spell out how laughable that is? Practically any national security crime carry similar or heavier penalties and govt. can start a very broad and arbitrary investigation for any reason. This means that the matter of starting surveillance is a small technicality really with zero oversight.
ChatControl 2.0 is exactly "all messaging must be intercepted and monitored" ...
Some of it probably is a slippery slope argument however that slippery slope has materialized already in other areas ... And security plays a role here as well. Maybe the camera/software/system is mandated not to identify driver (as is written in ADDS "spec") but atrocious security the modern car has would probably allow for that somehow...
I would not be surprised if Omarchy switching to Nix caused a large number of Nix devs to leave (yet again) simply because they can't stand others having opinions they don't like, and using the worst possible interpretations of what people say.
Wouldn't it be even more random (and randomly faster) to break out of the while loop when a winner is found? That way you are not always iterating over the entire list.
Perhaps a math/statistics expert can tell me why that is a bad idea.
If you break early, then you haven't given items later in the list the chance to be selected. You need to go through the entire list in order for every item to have an equal probability of selection.
The first iteration has a 100% chance of being marked as a winner. It only balances out to the same odds as a random selection because of the chances of it getting overwritten by the succeeding files.
reply