gattsuru
2d ago
gattsuru
3d ago
There's one classification that's people that the CBP (and related agencies) detected, but did not apprehend. There's still some uncertainty -- how much were the numbers fucked with? was that particular bunch of pixels in the distance of an overexposed camera a coyote or a coyote? the CBP used to exclude turn-backs from gotaway numbers, but they've stopped reporting turn-backs, does that indicate a methodology change or a reporting change -- but they're probably not entirely made up, either.
There's another classification that's everyone that the CBP didn't see at all as they crossed the border outside of a port of entry, period. The CBP's testified to Congress that this has stayed at "10 to 20%" of those detected but not apprehended, and that they have high confidence in it, but it also seems entirely pulled out of Mayorkas' backside. Unfortunately, that's true for most people: there's a lot of estimates for total apprehension rate that can be back-calculated into unknown-gotaways, or just plain estimates, but it's hard to argue why 25% or 33% or 42% is 'right'.
The estimates giving 6-7 million tend to be based around only CBP encounters, minus explusions/deportations, plus the CBP's own estimate for 'gotaways' or undetected illegal immigration. This isn't the absolute lowest-bound possible -- some number are repeat offenders -- but it's a very low estimate, especially when the CBP is also claiming that its apprehension rate has remained stable from the lowest part of the Trump/COVID lull til today, and as immigration courts have been increasingly swamped.
((And, obviously, this excludes visa overstays.))
I don't think 15m is correct (and it might just be taken from a Trump claim), and most of the ways to get anywhere plausibly close to it depend on some questionable assumptions (eg, declaring some of the weirder refugee categorizations "illegally imported" even if it's not strictly speaking illegal for the immigrants themselves), but the Biden admin numbers are pretty hard to believe.
gattsuru
3d ago
Was literally pointing a gun at Rittenhouse, whose friend claimed he said "His only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him" (later retracted, tots honest), and who was illegally carrying a concealed weapon after his carry permit had either expired or been revoked.
Yep.
gattsuru
3d ago
No clue. Attempts to formalize and distribute governance haven't even been great at stopping progressive organizations from being skin-suited from the inside; in neutral ones, they've been largely been explicit targets.
In terms of success stories, you've basically got SQLite. Which probably has had some effect -- it operates in a nexus of spaces where both liberal and leftist interests often drive focus. But I'm not sure it would work for many other projects.
gattsuru
3d ago
Paul Prediger, nee Gauge Grosskruetz, aka bye-ceps, has also filed a civil suit. But yes, I genuinely expected feds to go after him, and it hasn't happened, and that surprised me and does show some limits.
gattsuru
3d ago
Teter
To add to The_Nybbler's point, oral arguments in Rahimi were November 2023, a case where an incredibly unsympathetic defendant (alleged multiple shooter, drug dealer, and girlfriend beater) was indicted for possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic restraining order. We won't know for certain how the court rules until the opinion drops, and that probably won't happen for a month (or up to three).
But it's extremely unlikely that this will result in a significantly broadened understanding of the Second Amendment. The most optimistic takes in the gunnie world hope that the Court will allow Rahimi's conviction and just require a finding of 'dangerousness'. Most expect that they'll overturn the lower court, or leave only the most narrow process grounds to protect Rahimi.
And there are reasons beyond oral argument tea-leaf reading for that. It's already happened before in Gary/Greer, where unsympathetic plaintiffs made it easy for the court to decide that for process reasons a prohibited person didn't need to be proven to know they were prohibited.
But even more broadly, there's just not that much of the court touching this right to protect all but the most aggressive infringements in the cleanest-cut cases across the wide scope of all people in a jurisdiction, and sometimes not even that, even as case after case was teed up.
If the Court wanted to protect the rights of people who hadn't been violent, they had a case where a man was banned from possessing guns because he was convicted of counterfeiting cassette tapes in 1987. And they punted. If the Court wanted to protect the rights of people who had suffered mental illness long ago and recovered, they had a case where a man was banned from possessing guns because he had a depressive episode in 1999. And they punted. States requiring guns to have technologies that don't exist? Taking private property without warrant or compensation or grandfathering? License denials for driving while black a police encounter that did not result in an arrest or any evidence of wrongdoing? Punt punt punt.
The best result the gunnie sphere other than Bruen was Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016! and see the massive resistance in O'Neil v Neronha, only finished in 2022). After that, there's maybe the GVR on Duncan v Bonta... except they GVR'd it to the Ninth Circuit, which even at the time had literally never allowed the Second Amendment to do anything, and since broke rules to slow Duncan down further. It's not like Bruen is even the only example: Caniglia v. Strom, was more a Fourth Amendment case, but see the later punts on the massive resistance it has faced by lower courts.
Maybe I get surprised here, or VanDerStok is where (... in 2026? assuming it doesn't get punted then?). But despite an environment with a massive variety of low-hanging fruit, these are the only things the Court cared about, and that's not random.
gattsuru
4d ago
I'm not convinced that they were tools that are broken rather than blunted, but even if they are splintered beyond repair, how and when and what happened is worth knowing. Regardless of what matters in the long run, these tools are almost certainly not the only tools vulnerable to the same things.
gattsuru
4d ago
Along with the the impeachment process -- in New York, technically just 'removal', requires recommendation from the governor followed by two-thirds of the State Senate, gfl -- trial-level criminal court judges are appointed by the Mayor of New York City for a lengthy period, mandatory retirement at age 70. Judge Abena Darkeh's current term is set to expire in 2030, so you could just hold the New York City mayoral office for six years time, along with taking over the recommendation system. Again, gfl.
((There's also a rule about residence, but I have no clue if/how it's enforced.))
gattsuru
4d ago
To be fair, the Aloha Spirit stuff was downstream of using a state statute to evaluate the state constitution.
To be less fair, that's not how that works for anything else. And the state constitutional provision had the exact same text as the federal Second Amendment. Which the Hawaii Supreme Court decided just didn't apply, with or without any aloha spirit.
The Brooklyn District Attorney's website reports:
“Ghost guns are a threat to New Yorkers everywhere, and my Office is working tirelessly with our partners in law enforcement to stop their proliferation. Today’s sentence should send a message to anyone who, like this defendant, would try to evade critically important background checks and registration requirements to manufacture and stockpile these dangerous weapons. Every ghost gun we take off the street is a win for public safety.”
The District Attorney identified the defendant as Dexter Taylor, 53, of Bushwick, Brooklyn. He was sentenced today by Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Abena Darkeh to 10 years in prison. He was convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon; three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon; five counts of criminal possession of a firearm; unlawful possession of pistol ammunition; and prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers on April 16, 2024, following a jury trial.
Taylor, also known as CarbonMike, was both a CTRL-Pew 3d printing enthusiast and a New Yorker, a combination that Didn't Go Well.
The specific charges and sentencing are complex, but if I'm reading matters correctly, almost all sentences run concurrently, so the headline charge about ghost guns, like the charges about possession of pistol ammunition and so on, are kinda swamped by a ten-year sentence for 'assault weapons' and for 'owning five firearms'. There are a few border issues on the text of the statutes, but there's not a ton to argue on whether Taylor complied with these statutes.
((Not least of all because many are vague or broad enough that it's very much up to the local DA to make the decision anyway.))
There's a lot to be debated about whether the laws are constitutional, but not much chance that it matters. The New York Assault Weapons Ban has been the target of prolonged lawfare since before Bruen, with the FPC currently supporting Lane after the state was getting good enough reception in Vanchoff v James about lacking credible threats of prosecution, and that's the case with the stance furthest along. Other statutes, like possession of ammunition or "ammunition feeding devices" without a matching pistol permit, are difficult to write cases to challenge before enforcement at all. Even if the statutes for each of the longer sentences are overturned, bail pending appeal is extremely unlikely. Taylor will have served most if not all of his sentence first, especially given the glacial pace that courts have set for these matters (cfe Duncan).
Taylor also makes the argument that he did not have a fair day in court, and while almost every defendant does that to some extent, his argument is unusually compelling. No few gunnies finding a pull quote from the judge allegedly claiming that "Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York." but the gameplay about objections, if honestly stated, is as bad or worse. (I'm unable to find a direct trial transcript.).
Also doesn't matter. There is a right to an impartial judge, but this mostly covers matters like giant campaign donations or hating an entire nationality or literally copying text from a party's submissions, rather than just figuratively being on the prosecutor's side. Even assuming Taylor's (and his lawyer's) summary is accurate and complete, the appeals courts don't care that lower courts hate people accused of making guns.
In some ways, Taylor might be the ideal test case: nothing in the visible court records or DA chest-beating show nefarious intent like violent personal history or planned mass shooting or intent to resell (and New York law places a presumption on multiple possession as for sale), he (was) traditionally employed, he credibly claims that he's never fired a single one of the guns, and at 52, he's aged out of the various high-criminal-risk age brackets. To beat the HBDers to the punch, he's even visibly a minority.
((To beat the HBDers with a stick, if we're framing absolutely everything as part of the progressive stack, I think there's strong evidence that the real top of the stack is whatever matches the politics today in a far more direct manner than mere race.))
Of course, the Brooklyn DA brought the case, knowing that. The judge acted like this, in this case, knowing that. And no matter how dim you might think they are, they're winning, and this know what it takes to win. Whether that's because the courts punt on serious cases because defendants fail to present long evidence of futile requests, because they credibly believe that Taylor's not Perfect Enough for the courts to actually handle or for various gun rights orgs to fund, or because even if they're wrong they'll never suffer for it, doesn't really matter. It's possible that Brooklyn DA took the case because Taylor's social media made it easier to prove, it might be that we're only gonna hear about this case out of many because of said social media, and it doesn't really matter.
There's a lot of ways to snark, in "What's the penalty for being late?" fashion, about how Taylor's non-violent noncompliance with a law has gotten a much longer sentence than nutjobs who were separately violent, or a comparable sentence to a man who literally burned another man to death on the pyre of an Approved Cause. And that's not entirely fair, because the federal system doesn't have parole and New York does, and anyway there's a million different squiggly little variables about the crimes and sentences, and there's nowhere near enough cases to make a deep statistical analysis even if I wanted to try. Gun control advocates will certainly quibble, at the edges, about whether this is really 'non-violent non-violent', since there's always the possibility of later bad acts or theft or loss or mental break.
And Taylor ain't dead yet, despite an (alleged) no-knock raid. The actuarials put decent odds on him even seeing the light of day as a free man again, parole or no. Unlike Mr. Lee, had Taylor expressed his dislike of current law enforcement with a bit what the ATF calls a destructive device through a bit of what I call a broken window, the odds would not be looking so good. But there's no magic court case, here, and no golden BB. This isn't even the strawman of a scifi writer drawing up villains who just want their laws as threats to hang over innocent men. If you are ruled by people who hate you, giving puppy-dog eyes and saying this is just a paperwork crime and no one was hurt won't buy you a cup of coffee before you get absolutely reamed in all the least fun ways, and contra a once-prolific-now-banned poster here, everyone who cares about this stuff is ruled by men who hate them.
This is what table stakes looks like.
gattsuru
5d ago
[caveat: there are some parts of this discussion area I'm not going to describe, either publicly or in private messages.]
Any? Throw YOLO onto a Jetson, some batteries, and a decent lens, have fun. Start with one of a dozen preconfigured models, maybe use the VisDrone dataset if you want to put a bit of effort into tweaking something. Probably about 2k-10k if you're buying all pre-built (maybe a bit more if you want non-DJI).
Actually doing it well gets harder. There's been a little bit of effort into image-based localization, to avoid GPS jamming, but for technical reasons (off-nadir sunlight suuuuuucks) it's annoying as hell to work with, and you probably want it or something like it, in addition to your main sensor payload. Some human identification is easier than others. And actual decision-making for more complex stuff is a Coding Project.
gattsuru
6d ago
The spreadsheet did not appear to have all data, even in hidden form: Nordean argues that several messages were missing, in addition to those hidden, and the government's later claimed that Miller had deleted them. While some were never disclosed (either claimed as classified, 'FBI sensitive', or irrelevant), several of the deleted messages were made available later and had no plausible justification for nondisclosure. Beyond that, several pieces of Miller's live testimony contradicted the messages in the hidden part of the spreadsheet, most notably related to access to attorney-client privileged materials.
gattsuru
7d ago
I legitimately do not understand why judge's eyes gloss over or even they get angry when it's suggested these people shouldn't be assumed to be the most credible people to ever exist. It's almost comical how much defense counsel has to tip-toe around it until they find essentially a smoking gun.
What's particularly funny is how even defense lawyers get into it. Cfe when themotte's own notice that an FBI agent perjured herself at length during a criminal trial; he was genuinely curious how the FBI agent would weasel out of it (spoiler: easily!), and even entertained the possibility "whether the prosecutors will bother" to bring perjury charges (spoiler: no).
Civil suits can be very Zif's Law-prone, where a small number of actors can put an outsized number of lawsuits forward, unless the statute is very limited (and the various enforcement arms actually stick to that rather than redefining it). Laufer from Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, for example, filed "557 suits in sixteen different states, plus the District of Columbia", and while she's at the higher end of ADA testers, individual people with thousands of tester lawsuits exist.
But that depends on a number of very specific attributes: ADA tester targets have a lot of capital, they're often represented by insurance companies that are willing to give cash, the (court and administrative interpretation of) relevant statutory language in many circuits allows both standing and damages to be found without normal concrete harm, a very compliant regulatory system that writes increasingly broad material to base a lawsuit on, so on. Hence why SB8 lawsuits are very thin on the ground, and with HB1557 only allowing declaratory and injunctive relief it'll be the domain of morons tilting at windmills. The gun private right of action laws tend to be much more mixed -- lots of cash out there both to support lawsuits going in and reward them coming out, but standard of harm is a mess, and the PLCAA is only dying rather than dead.
In theory, it should be possible to write statutory language that limits testing trolls while still allowing even small lawsuits over actual harm, but a) a there's a pretty sizable portion of the support for the ADA that thinks the lawsuit heavy enforcement is a benefit, and b) it's not clear that actually would work, anyway.
gattsuru
10d ago
It was all boiled down to that 5000 number that you’ll see repeated over and over again in Republican criticisms of the bill. What’s worse is that this number is presented as a capitulation to Democrats rather than a ceiling on the use of a draconian new power granted in a heavily conservative bill. It’s presented as if the bill mandates open borders for the first 5000 illegal immigrants every day, and only then begins to enforce some border policies. This is so laughably, bafflingly wrong that it defies belief.
In addition to the obvious no-trust problems -- there was already wide suspicion that official numbers on undocumented crossings (aka gotaways) were underestimates before the feds had additional cause to massage them down, and there's no judicial authority to require the Border Patrol to actually do something even should they report the real numbers, there's some fun questions about how mandatory 'shall' language gets -- the proposed bill had a number of other wide ceilings to its use that your summary glosses over:
- The count only includes "encounters" "between the southwest land border ports", "between the ports of entry along the southern coastal borders", and "between the southwest land border ports of entry of the United States", where "encounter" means physical apprehension and/or seeking admission at a port of entry. Gotaways don't count.
- "Aliens described in subsection (a)(2)(C) [unaccompanied minors] from noncontiguous countries shall not be included in calculating the sum of aliens encountered."
- "If the President finds that it is in the national interest to temporarily suspend the border emergency authority, the President may direct the Secretary to suspend use of the border emergency authority on an emergency basis." [for 45 days out of a year]
- The Secretary of Homeland Security only shall activate the border emergency without review on crossing the numeric thresholds for 90 days for the first year, 75 days for the second year, and 60 days for the third year; the SHS has unreviewable authority to not activate the 'mandatory' emergency for 180/150/120 days, and may not activate it at all the remainder of those years.
- The Border Emergency's exception lists includes "An alien who an immigration officer determines, with the approval of a supervisory immigration officer, should be excepted from the border emergency authority based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests, or an alien who an immigration officer determines, in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, should be excepted from the border emergency authority due to operational considerations." [eg, just because there's a border emergency active and mandatory doesn't mean any alien must actually be handled.
- ‘‘(A) SUMMARY REMOVAL .—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall issue a summary removal order and summarily remove an alien to the country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen (or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence), or in accordance with the processes established under section 241, unless the summary removal of the alien to such country would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. [emphasis added.]
gattsuru
10d ago
Wheeeeeeeeee. (details).
gattsuru
10d ago
Yes, not only do state criminal courts handle federal constitutional questions, it's actual necessary for a plaintiff or defendant to bring constitutional complaints to the trial-level court or they risk surrendering the question on appeal (with a few exceptions not relevant here).
gattsuru
10d ago
Yeah. I think the more recent immigration bills also had to deal with the aftermath of the Gang of Eight attempt in 2013, which even contemporaneously was seen as Rubio getting punked by some embarrassingly useless compromises-in-name-only
You, uh, missed a spot. Or, for one without a header, whether one can stop to piss in Albany without risking a felony. And it's not like these things are the only examples -- if I hadn't hit trans stuff separately, I'd be pointing out the entire circuit where the ADA now covers gender identity disorders, despite the explicit text of the ADA excluding that by name!
Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act It should also be noted that the EEOC still has to follow the APA when it comes to procedural matters in promulgation (like notice and comment), so this lack of authority doesn't exactly make it easy for them to run wild.
By which you mean they issued a NPR, and then changed basically zip in response to significant public comment.
Saying outright that the law didn't apply to abortion would have created a situation where the EEOC guidance was directly at-odds with any reasonable canon of legislative interpretation; I don't think any textualist could argue with a straight face that abortions aren't pregnancy-related.
The statute, for whatever it matters, does not cover all pregnancy-related matters: it covers "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." It's... actually not that hard to notice the difference between a medical procedure and a medical condition.
Maybe that difference shouldn’t on net matter, or the doctrine of constitutional avoidance should rule. There's perfectly good fairness or policy reasons that it should, and perhaps in a world where the text was about pregnancy-related anythings and conservatives had eaten the administrative agencies, I'd be making arguments that they're betrayed trust in an important compromise.
And yet we're here.
But that's all irrelevant because it's unlikely that this rule (or lack thereof) would ever result in litigation... I've personally never had an employer ask about the nature of any medical procedure I've taken time off to get, or had them ask me which doctor I was going to, and if a doctor's excuse is required, I doubt many employers are going to do internet research to determine if this is a doctor who exclusively performs abortions.
Yet rather than the answer to "It's no big deal" being "fine, then let me win" instead, we find that everyone insists it is both necessary and obvious, no matter how much they have to play with statute's language to get the job done.
Indeed, even were there some central case that were vital or some symbolic victory that should be a big deal to the progressive movement and a trivial one to conservatives, the religious freedom concerns that the EEOC itself claims never happen still can't get a "fine, then let me win". While "The Commission also received tens of thousands of comments asserting that giving certain accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, such as providing leave for abortion, infertility treatments, or contraception, would infringe upon the employer's religious freedom", the final rule gloss over any serious management or standard of those concerns, leaving such questions open to "defenses using a case-by-case analysis" and motioning to a statutory defense that only protects religious organization's ability to hire people of that religion.
((Spoiler: there's few cases only because everyone paying attention knows defending against a suit is high-risk and staggeringly expensive, and there's absolutely no guarantee that the vague religious freedom exceptions might apply until very late in appeals, so the EEOC can get 99.9% of the impact just by noisily threatening enforcement and then shrugging that their political opponents leave the entire topic like a landmine.))
FFLs When the entire point of specific statutory language is to expand a definition, you can't complain too loudly when that definition gets expanded. If you had sole rulemaking authority with regards to this, how would you expand the definition to conform with the new law without simply restating the old definition? I'm sure you can think of a dozen ways that this could be done, but that's beside the point.
Not only could I, eighteen thousand people did, as Halbrook points out in his link, but you're right to say that, too, is besides the point. The ATF and APA do not care about the little people. But it does make this rhetorical question more than a little obnoxious.
But there's a third category of people we've talked about before who the government really doesn't like — people who want to sell guns part-time or as a hobby. You mentioned in a previous post how the ATF no longer will issue FFLs for hobbyists. You can disagree with that stance all you want, but it seems to me that Congress agrees with that and that was the specific intent behind the change in language.
But Congress did not write a law saying that you can not sell firearms as a hobbyist; it wrote that you needed an FFL to sell firearms to "predominantly earn a profit", and the ATF decided that included firearms sales that included a profit at all, or even if they didn't have a profit but might be motivated by the money. Congress has not even modified the statutory requirements for provisioning an FFL in decades! And I'll point again to the ATF happily ignoring the strict text of the statute whenever it decides that it knows best.
When you write that the government really doesn't like them, that's true in the sense that 'the government' means progressives, operating under a presumption that compromise means progressive interests get a large portion of what they demand, and conservative interests get fucked, and not in the fun way.
The problem as I see it doesn't stem so much from the law itself or ATF's interpretation of it but that there is a group of people for whom any further restrictions on gun sales is bad and needs to be stopped.
I can separately argue that the law was badly intended, but I don't think there's anything insightful to point out that people want to ban guns entirely and make being an FFL as difficult as possible and impossible for many. Yes, duh, I predicted that literally before Biden was sworn in as President, I can't pretend to be surprised today. Props to you for at least admitting that the whole point is make onerous rules that drive hobbyists and part-timers from the field, but it isn't exactly some deep cover.
No, the problem as I'm trying to highlight is that there is a group of people who claimed at length that this was -- as held in the name -- a Bipartisan compromise that would include both further restrictions and clarifications protecting gunnies, and this didn't happen at all. The statute still explicitly recognizes private sales, but the ATF doesn't actually recognize any way to clearly comply with it in this rule-making.
In many ways, they would have been better served by flipping anyone who offered claimed concessions the bird. It matters, that for many, that is increasingly clear.
FACE Act It's telling that this law has only become controversial in recent years, after the Biden Administration used it aggressively in the wake of Dobbs. For the first 30 or so years of its existence, the fact that it was never used in cases of church vandalism was never an issue.
It... actually was a pretty big controversy back in the 2008-2012 timeframe, as activists had begun disrupting church services, while both feds and state officials left the matter to civil litigation. The ADF actually brought suit with some limited success in that case, though both the org and the individuals were basically judgement proof.
At least not enough of an issue for 2 Republican presidents to invoke it in 12 years, one of whom was devoutly religious and the other of whom was devoutly into culture warring.
At the same 2008-2012 timeframe, the DoJ was highlighting increased use from the pre-Obama framework where it was largely perceived as targeting bad actors on the scale of arson or bombings. If you want to rest your argument on the masterful control of the DoJ Trump demonstrated, I hope you have fun, but I'm gonna have a hard time taking it seriously.
But it doesn't compare to the Houck case, at least if you actually look at the procedural posture. The information in the Nota case was filed the day before the plea was entered. This itself was several months after the incident. What this suggests was that this was already a done deal by the time it was even on the court's docket; for all we know, the prosecutor could have threatened to throw the book at Nota before offering a misdemeanor charge and a sentencing recommendation as a lifeline.
The information that we can't see or find or read, even presuming it actually exists, does not actually do a good job of protecting trust, especially given the extent this glosses over a wide variety of other stuff in the reporting (Nota spraypainting an employee's face and threw a rock at them, and also spray-painted a police car). The lack of SWAT, I am sure, has a similarly plausible and similarly unprovable charitable explanation.
Indeed, yes, the guy who didn't destroy property or spraypaint anyone in the face could have gotten a plea bargain. Of course, Houck was found not-guilty, while Nota was caught spraypaint-handed. Interestingly, we do happen to have another example I linked where the people were actually guilty of a FACE Act violation against abortion clinics, and one of the protestors plead guilty, turned government witness, and got 10 months in prison for her plea deal.
Yes, I'm sure there's some post-hoc way that This One Is Different. There might even be ways to argue it that doesn't look hilariously biased (Davis conspired to block a hallway! something something sentencing guidelines! two counts, because Nota didn't do two illegal things at once!), though I'm not optimistic. But the readiness that people defending these disparities can discover that it is impossible to evaluate the merits or compare in any statistically meaningful way are starting to echo.
gattsuru
11d ago
Six months update:
As of 14 February 2024, 112 hostages had been returned alive to Israel, with 105 being released in a prisoner exchange deal, four released by Hamas unilaterally and three rescued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Twelve bodies of hostages were repatriated to Israel, with three of the hostages killed by friendly fire from the IDF[22] and the bodies of nine hostages repatriated through military operations. 49 hostages were reportedly killed on October 7 or in Hamas captivity according to Israel. According to unconfirmed Israeli intelligence, at least 20 additional hostages may be deceased, with their bodies being held captive in Gaza. As of 3 May 2024, 132 hostages remained in captivity in the Gaza Strip, 128 of whom had been abducted on 7 October 2023; the other four hostages having been captured earlier.
About 130 hostages remain unaccounted for after being kidnapped by Hamas on 7 October last year - at least 34 of them are presumed dead. According to Israel, more than 250 Israelis and foreigners were taken during the attacks. Israel gives an official figure of 134 hostages because it includes four people taken hostage in 2014 and 2015. Two of these are believed to have died.
My sad working theory has been that one reason talks were stalled was that a deal would force Hamas to reveal that most of the hostages were either dead or pregnant. Now this: AFAIK, there are still ca 125 hostages in Gaza, and Hamas can't produce 33 who are still alive?
So more than I feared, less than I hoped, and it's become increasingly possible to say publicly among mainstream sources that it's probably not gonna look better.
Perhaps they'll issue a clarification, but from the note in this section, I think someone could read this as "memory"; it has "memory" right in the name!
Maybe, but so does CMOS RAM, and that's a central example of where you probably do want this rule to apply, and it's (usually) more volatile than FRAM. 5.4-1 to my read isn't about access modes or media type, but about storage volatility, and that makes some amount of sense for certain attack vectors -- you don't want someone reading cloud passwords by probing random SPI flash, as weird as that particular threat is.
But it also makes a lot of design spaces for low-power devices goofy, in ways that don't make sense. There's probably a class of low-power device where it's a really critical security problem is someone delid the main processors and inspects individual FRAM cells during a toggle-off state, but 99% of the time even if someone could hijack a session id from that it's less big of a deal than having access to the board to start with.
5.4-2 (unique IDs) : This one is conditional, and I imagine ultra-small or ultra-disposable devices won't qualify in the first place.
Yeah, but the condition is only that applies where ever "a hard-coded unique per device identity is used for security purposes". I think that includes virtually every LoRaWan (DevEUI) and probably every LoRa device, for one common example, but also technically at least most Bluetooth implementations. There's other places where it's a good idea to use hard-coded unique identities per device for security purposes even where it doesn't 'matter', and that's largely going to result in people just dealing with stupid hacks instead to avoid triggering the requirement whenever possible.
5.3.4/6/10 (updates): Same here; conditional. We'd at least have to get down to the level of thinking about each of the devices you've mentioned in terms of the conditions.
Yeah, but the conditions for 5.3-4 is "an update mechanism is implemented", 5.3-6 "an update mechanism is implemented" and "the device supports automatic updates and/or update notifications", and 5.3-10 that "updates are delivered over a network interface" and "an update mechanism is implemented". These are fine when you're talking a full web-UI/app-equipped device, but twenty sensors on a LIN line that can be updated still hit the requirement for 5.3-4, which is on its own a requirement for automatic updates so you now hit 5.3-6. Then you're trying to figure out how 5.3-10 works for devices that don't have user interfaces (and may not have user physical access!), and now you're either stuck tossing an authentication layer on your LIN, implementing a cryptographic security function for comms on said LIN, or spamming users with update notifications like they were running Arch Linux.
5.3-15: I think I would interpret this as, sure, you need to support any part of a product until you tell the customer that you're not supporting it anymore, and the type of support can vary.
Eh...
Let's take the example of a lightning switches attached to a base station, as a fairly common home automation setup where the switches and adapters are... not actually a central case of the constrained device model (they have wall power!) but are at least arguably close. If you build one of these, you're probably going to support a wide variety of light bulb sockets and switch types, but not all of those are going to make sense over the longer term -- maybe a socket type falls out of popularity, or a new lightbulb tech drops that doesn't play well with dimmer circuits, or a vendor you partner with stops selling a product that makes that particular device make sense.
By the text, is a lighting hub "isolable and hardware replaceable" if the vendor doesn't want to sell every attachment for the hub's life cycle? Removing one attached device doesn't make the attached device 'isolable', because turning on and off that light is its core feature. Nor is removing the entire hub from the internet, since there's no sane way to call that a "self-contained environment with other devices if and only if the integrity of devices within that environment can be ensured", when the especially if the entire reason to pop them off the internet has to do with their ability to communicate securely with the local hub. Would it be hardware replaceable is the only hardware replacement doesn't actually fit into the same socket, just because something attaches to the same hub?
Yes, in practice your interpretation is the sane one, and hopefully it's probably going to end up as the sort of asterisk that just confuses people, like vendors just putting out generic 'support may stop without notice for some devices' clauses. But at best that turns the requirement into aspirational text instead of the actual policy.
(5.5-3) How easy is that? You don't even have to update it at all. But if you do, then at least make sure your shit isn't trivially broken, at least so long as you're telling the customer that you're still supporting it.
I think the interpretation of that standard is closer to page 45-46 here, if not on the exact same timelines, and that quickly turns into an eWaste and version hop mandate for a lot of stuff pretty quickly in order to theoretically prevent the plausibility of certain attack classes, rather than blocking trivial ones. But even for its steelman of "don't use WPA2-only chips in new products", I think it's still costly even if well-intended, and a lot of those costs don't make a ton of sense. There's a number of chips and equipment that can't connect on WPA3 at all, and even where it's something that can be implemented in software that doesn't mean it's exactly easy.
More broadly, though, it seems like overbroad application of a rule. A presumption toward encrypting everything makes sense when it's free or nearly-free, but there are a lot of entire devices where it's just not that relevant. If your equipment does literally nothing but relay temperature and humidity values over ISM bands, you might want some amount of authentication to prevent spoofing, but it's really not that big a deal if someone can listen in. And there's a lot of IoT stuff that goes into that category.
There's some parts of the rules that motion around this -- 5.5-1's "Appropriateness of security controls and the use of best practice cryptography is dependent on many factors including the usage context" or the exceptions for ARP, DHCP, DNS, ICMP, and NTP in 5.5-5 -- but again that turns the requirement into aspirational text.
gattsuru
11d ago
Although it seems baked into the post is the unsaid premise that the problem is the laws were crafted poorly/maliciously.
Oh, my apologies; I don't really mean to take a position on that. It's quite possible that even the most consequential and hidden stuff, like the coverage for gender identity stuff in the ACA, was totally well-intended to the most circumscribed bounds (though I'm not optimistic). It's possible that Obama genuine did at the time not want to fund health insurance for DACA, and there are almost certainly cases where the law was far more explicit and clearly written and reversed anyway. Halbrook's examples of ATF adventurism probably fall there, and I'm a long fan of pointing to problems like whether FOPA means you can stop to piss in Albany, or where a certain high-profile someone revised multiple statutory requirements to destroy records and not record or transfer them at a government facility to instead permit keeping them.
Similarly, one can readily imagine a world where every law was written in the most backhanded way by some evil grand vizier, yet it wouldn't matter because they were enforced by some even-handed personification of justice. We're just not in that world.
But, IMHO, the problem is all the enforcement agencies have been captured by neoliberals. And so there simply is no law that they won't interpret in the manner that most suits their objectives.
Yeah, there's definitely that.
But while that's definitely a bigger problem, and maybe even a coup-complete one, I think it's worth noting the separate issue and incentive where enacting a law or portion of a law to prevent something instead turned into ammunition to enact the desired change. And even if that's a rare matter, even if biased enforcement agencies are replaced or abolished, it's going to be something that will remain as a failure mode.
More options
Context Copy link