rcw4256

If the data exists within US jurisdiction, the US government feels (and, in practice, is) entitled to it. Plan accordingly.

That answer should be unsatisfactory to the court, since it wasn't licensed under the GPL. The rules, in this case, say no use in war.

Yes, but you need to be prepared to take it to court when someone uses your software in war.

FOIA has no real penalties for noncompliance. In Washington State, our public records law has penalties (legal fees + $100 per day of noncompliance), and as a result, state agencies tend to actually follow it.

> Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers.

This is probably true, but it's hard to be certain that they'd prevail. Has this actually been tested in court?

We now have explicit, written authorization from the head of WhatsApp to reverse engineer ("tear through") the binaries. The ToS only prohibits unauthorized reverse engineering. I agree with you that it was disallowed prior to this comment, but I think it's OK now.

Please implement a warrant canary while you still can, before you are legally compelled not to.

> especially career twitter archaeologists who dig up old tweets and put them out of context

Richard Stallman doesn't tweet. What are you talking about?

Apparently you need to fail verification a few times before it'll present the option. I kept giving it bogus phone numbers and eventually a "skip" button appeared.

The Draeger breathalyzer fiasco in Washington State was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Draeger has consistently resisted attempts to make its source code public. Will you commit to publicly releasing the source code to your "cannalyzer" device firmware?