If you actually read the notice, it exempts models that have been approved. So this just seems to require approvals by DOH or DHS ,": Routers^ produced in a foreign country, except routers which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS." I take this to mean it is just adding security approvals for this type of thing to DOw and DHS. It is not a ban of all future models. It's just saying explicitly that instead of having to review models already in the market and determine that they should be removed because of nation state or other security concerns they are reviewing them before they go to market. Would be nice if people actually read it instead of hyperventilating.
It's fine to have a reaction. It just rhat a lot of the comments totally ignored this this caveat. So basically, as I read it by default, they're banned unless approved, which is pretty much what all regulation does anyway, isn't it.
During the last years USA has banned a lot of things by default, but in all cases there were exemptions for things receiving specific approvals.
However, the approvals appear to have not been based on any objective methodology, but sometimes nothing has been approved, while otherwise there may have been some approvals but their randomness was suspicious.
Now this new interdiction continues the trend, so it is normal for people to be wary that any approvals will be based on some kind of bribing and not on any serious security audit.
Especially since the announcement provides no information about how the DoD or DHS will be evaluating what to approve, and it's unlikely that they have the resources to do any meaningful security evaluation on that many products.
The DOH and DOW have a lot of resources. And I would guess the DOW has a lot of intelligence resources and most likely the DOH also I mean it is their job to keep the homeland safe. But I would agree. It probably will involve a lot of marshaling of those resources and reorganization. But who's to say they haven't done that already. My general point is that the conversation in this thread completely ignores that this is an imposition of a different regulatory scheme, not a banning. And actually it's in favor of enforcing more security on routers which everybody has been screaming for for years.
Confused about this comment. Are you talking about government subsidies and tax incentives? Haven't companies and consumers already been given these incentives? Now that they're drawing down, it's obvious there's a limited market. What needs to happen is real economic demands need to make the market not created ones. Then prices will come down and efficiencies will increase .
Fantastic tear down. Thank you. Amazing for Apple. I hope this is the trend going forward but probably not. But still a gazillion screws? I just replaced the keyboard for my old hp elitebook with two screws.
It seems like they’re starting to learn the cost of being too integrated.
They’ve slowly been moving towards making it easier to repair individual broken parts. I’m very happy to see that a new keyboard doesn’t require replacing the entire top case. That was just crazy.
Good addition but to be fair HN guidelines have become so quaint particularly as they are now rarely enforced or even acknowledged. E.g. "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. " And " Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. " These are violated every day without consequence.
I'm not an expert in fourth amendment but I do know that assuming a subpoena without judicial oversight violates the fourth amendment is not correct. All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure. In some circumstances a judicial subpoena may be necessary and others not. An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly run like the wild west.
> An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly run like the wild west
Hard disagree. The fact that a government agency "reviewed" its own subpoena before enforcing it does not follow the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which is to prevent government overreach in taking your belongings and information.
In fact, to take your definition of what's not unreasonable to its logical conclusion, by definition any process an agency came up with would be acceptable, as long as they followed it.
I think a better definition of a reasonable search and seizure would be one where a subpoena goes before a judge, the target of the subpoena is notified and has the opportunity to fight it, and where there are significant consequences for government agents who lie or otherwise abuse the process of getting a subpoena.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation<<
that means there must be affirmation of probable cause to an overseeing body [i.e. judiciary]
administrative warrants are a process of "i know im right i dont need someone else to look things over"
If the party on the receiving end of a search needs to be a lawyer to simply understand the legality of a warrant, I’d argue the search is unreasonable.
> All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure.
Are you saying that by the existence of the fourth that unreasonable search/seizures are guaranteed to happen? It can't guarantee protection from them either.
DHS/ICE is in a weird constitutional spot. Most immigration violations in the US are _civil_ violations. So the Fourth Amendment is less applicable. It's also why detained immigrants don't automatically get the right to be represented by a lawyer.
ICE/DHS technically are just acting as marshals, merely ensuring that defendants appear at court proceedings and then enforcing court decisions (deportations).
It's not really that the 4th amendment is less applicable, it's that the procedural protections are lower in civil proceedings.
I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
In theory yes, but in practice it's more unclear. There are conflicting Supreme Court precedents, that weaken the Fourth Amendment in cases where criminal penalties don't apply. Asset foreiture is another example.
> I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
Yep. That's also a difference between theory and practice.
What exactly do you disagree with? Most immigration violations are a civil matter (USC section 8). There are criminal violations like human trafficking or illegal entry. But if you came into the US with a visa and then overstayed, you're not committing anything criminal.
And even illegal entry is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment is at most 6 months in jail. So yeah, ICE and DHS _technically_ don't have more power than regular marshals for most immigration cases.
Which should scare you, btw. There are plenty of civil violations that can be similarly weaponized in future.
reply