Brindle

Our first results confirm the hypothesis that the bra is a false need," Rouillon told France Info. "Medically, physiologically, anatomically, the breast does not benefit from being deprived of gravity. Instead, it languishes with a bra." The 15-year study involved 330 volunteers between the ages 18 and 35. Researchers measured their breasts using a slide ruler and a caliper and recorded any changes throughout the study period. Women who did not wear bras had a 7 millimeter lift as measured from their nipples each year. Their breasts were also firmer, and their stretch marks faded. There was also no evidence that the bras helped get rid of back pain. The researchers believed that wearing bras prevented the growth of breast tissue, which lead to deterioration of the muscles that support the breasts. If you don't wear a bra, the muscles are worked-out more, the findings suggest.

While electronic annoyance of an adult becomes criminal only if it continues after a request to stop, no such triggering provision is included for behavior that may annoy a minor. (And as I read it, there is no requirement that the defendant know that the person being subjected to intentional emotional distress is a minor — engaging in a vigorous “flame war” with a Maryland resident might turn out to be criminal if the username “ParentInLinthicum” turns out to conceal a teenage user.) Exceptions are made for speech that is intended to express political views or convey information, a curious pair of exemptions in that it has long been assumed that our First Amendment protects many types of seriously annoying speech other than those two.

We are supposed to support this law — and some lawmakers I admire did support it — to show that we care about children. Once on the books, however, this law will assuredly ruin the lives and futures of other kids who will be the subject of investigations and prosecutions, and not all those kids are monsters whose ruin we should accept with equanimity

There are a few things that this isn’t: it isn’t the official copy of the code, and lawyers would be ill-advised to cite it alone. It isn’t up-to-date – the council is fast-moving and this is just a snapshot. In time we’ll fix these problems too.

Supported Bootloader Unlocking

fastboot oem get_unlock_data

fastboot oem unlock [token]

QFuses and Trusted Boot

Checking the Bootloader Status

int handle_fboot_oem_unlock(char *cmd)
{
    char *token;

    if ( is_unlocking_allowed() != 0xff )
    {
        print_console("INFO", "fastboot oem unlock disabled!");
        return 3;
    }

    if ( is_device_locked() != 0xff )
    {
        print_console("INFO", "Device already unlocked!");
        return 3;
    }
    token = cmd + 12;    /* offset of token in "oem unlock [token]" */

    if ( strnlen(token, 21) - 1 > 19)
    {
        print_console("INFO", "fastboot oem unlock [ unlock code ]");
        return 0;
    }

    if ( !validate_token_and_unlock(token) )
    {
        print_console("INFO", "OEM unlock failure!");
        return 3;
    }

    return 0;
}

Token Validation

Introducing TrustZone

Communicating with TrustZone

struct scm_command {
    u32 len;
    u32 buf_offset;
    u32 resp_hdr_offset;
    u32 id;
    u32 buf[0];
};

Inside TrustZone

int handle_smc(int code, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3)
{

    int ret;

    switch (code) {
    ...
    case 2:
        if (global_flag) {
            ret = -1001;
        }
        else {
            /* Perform unlock */
           ...
           ret = 0;
        }
        break;
    case 3:
        global_flag = 1;
        ret = 0;
        break;
    ...
    }
    return ret;
}

Exploiting TrustZone

    switch (code) {
        ...
        case 9:
            if ( arg1 == 0x10 ) {

                for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
                    *(unsigned long *)(arg2 + 4*i) = global_array[i];
                ret = 0;

            } else
                ret = -2020;
            break;
        ...
    }

If you've ever wondered why public agencies have such ridiculously stringent social media policies (for instance, DHS employees can't even view the agency's Facebook page while at work), it's likely because of unfortunate instances like the following.

A Texas state trooper charged with sexually assaulting two women during a traffic stop was providing them with "customer service," says Dale Roberts, the executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association (CPOA) and a professor at the University of Missouri. (The CPOA is a part of the Fraternal Order of Police, one of the country's largest police unions.)

"It's called Customer Service!" Roberts wrote in a March 27 Facebook post about the indictment of Texas State Trooper Kelly Helleson, who was charged with two counts of sexual assault after conducting an illegal roadside strip search of two women. "We just did it so they wouldn't have to make the trip all the way down to the station," he added.

Obviously, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley probably don't see the humor in the situation because they were the "situation." Here's a quick rundown of the events that led to Trooper Helleson's indictment.

The two women were pulled over last year by Helleson and fellow trooper David Farrell (who was charged with theft when a bottle of prescription pills went missing from Dobbs' vehicle after the illegal search) in Irving, Texas, after throwing a cigarette butt out the window of their car. Farrell came up to the car and claimed he smelled marijuana. When a search of the vehicle didn't turn up any pot, he instructed Helleson to conduct a cavity search on the women, who Farrell said were "acting weird." That's when Helleson, in plain view of passing cars on Highway 161 (and the dashboard camera in her cruiser), stuck her hand down the back and front of both women's pants, searching their genitals. To make matters worse, Helleson conducted both searches without changing her latex gloves. In short order, the Dobbs filed suit and video of the stop was posted on Youtube. [Following video possibly NSFW.]

As if his original post wasn't offensive enough, Robert's followed it up with another pithy sexual assault joke, stating "Evidently, the [sic] searched them downtown without going downtown." It should also be noted that Roberts has a hard time keeping his keyboard from overriding his better judgement. He was also criticized for a making a racist joke on the CPOA's Facebook page (where he is an administrator) last month.

Government agencies and closely-aligned entities contain just as many badly behaving and ill-mannered people as any cross section of the populace. Harsh social media policies are a direct result of actions like these. It would be nice to see people like Roberts weeded out of influential organizations by this sort of offensive stupidity, but the most common reaction seems to be across-the-board social media restrictions. Muzzling people with policy is simpler than cleaning up any internet messes they might make.

Whether Roberts likes it or not, he is the face of the CPOA, whether posting on the association's Facebook page or his personal one. He may just be "joking," but his subject matter isn't appropriate considering his position with the police union. Roberts is welcome to say whatever he wants, but the CPOA would be greatly served by ousting a repeat offender that portrays the organization in a negative light. Silence on this matter implies approval of Roberts' comments and strongly suggests that many in the organization believe that abusing citizens is not only OK, but inherently funny.

Last summer, in an effort to strike the right balance between government transparency and the protection of critical intelligence activities, the government declassified four statements concerning its activities pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) Amendments Act of 2008. Not content with that disclosure, Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF” or “Plaintiff”) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request seeking additional information related to two of the declassified statements, specifically, that on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) “held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” and that “on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached th[e ] conclusion” that “the government’s implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law.”

The government has determined that disclosure of the information withheld from Plaintiff could result in exceptionally grave and serious damage to the national security. Plaintiff obviously cannot contend otherwise. The Court accordingly should defer to the government’s determination in this case, uphold the Department’s withholdings, and grant this motion.

Yet, as the amicus brief points out, the OLC’s opinions aren’t some intermediary step toward establishing the final legal interpretations for the executive branch. In general, they are the final legal interpretations for the executive branch. The FBI could choose to exercise the authority that the OLC said it had — or not — but Congress, the judiciary and the public at large all deserve to know what the executive branch thinks it can do, once it issues a conclusive opinion.

Functioning as a secret political police force against people participating in lawful, peaceful free speech activity, the heavily redacted documents show that the DHS “Threat Management Division” directed Regional Intelligence Analysts to provide a “Daily Intelligence Briefing” that includes a category of reporting on “Peaceful Activist Demonstrations” along with “Domestic Terrorist Activity.” (p. 68)

The PCJF has obtained thousands of pages of documents pursuant to its Freedom of Information Act demands and made them available for public viewing. The newly obtained documents show coordination and intelligence monitoring by the DHS, the FBI, the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies of “Occupy-type” protests.

The documents show the routine use of Fusion Centers for intelligence gathering on peaceful demonstrations as well as the use of DHS’ “Mega Centers” for collection of surveillance information on demonstrations.

The documents show a Department of Homeland Security that appears obsessed with the question of whether any and all protests that are being surveilled receive media attention and coverage. Reporting within the DHS on media coverage of First Amendment protected activities, even in the smallest places, appears to be a routine part of DHS intelligence reports. None of the documents explain why media coverage of peaceful demonstrations is of interest to law enforcement or concerns “homeland security” in any way.