dChan
Anonymous ID: feb63d Dec. 27, 2023, 8:28 p.m. No.20141381   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1387 >>1449 >>1455 >>1626 >>1819 >>1927 >>1951

>>20141332

 

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_smartphone_push_notification_surveillance_letter.pdf

 

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

 

Dear Attorney General Garland:

 

I write to urge the Department of Justice (DOJ) to permit Apple and Google to inform their

customers and the general public about demands for smartphone app notification records.

In the spring of 2022, my office received a tip that government agencies in foreign countries

were demanding smartphone “push” notification records from Google and Apple. My staff have

been investigating this tip for the past year, which included contacting Apple and Google. In

response to that query, the companies told my staff that information about this practice is

restricted from public release by the government.

 

Push notifications are the instant alerts delivered to smartphone users by apps, such as a

notification about a new text message or a news update. They aren't sent directly from the app

provider to users’ smartphones. Instead, they pass through a kind of digital post office run by the

phone's operating system provider. For iPhones, this service is provided by Apple's Push

Notification Service; for Android phones, it's Google's Firebase Cloud Messaging. These

services ensure timely and efficient delivery of notifications, but this also means that Apple and

Google serve as intermediaries in the transmission process.

 

As with all of the other information these companies store for or about their users, because Apple

and Google deliver push notification data, they can be secretly compelled by governments to

hand over this information. Importantly, app developers don't have many options; if they want

their apps to reliably deliver push notifications on these platforms, they must use the service

provided by Apple or Google, respectively. Consequently, Apple and Google are in a unique

position to facilitate government surveillance of how users are using particular apps. The data

these two companies receive includes metadata, detailing which app received a notification and

when, as well as the phone and associated Apple or Google account to which that notification

was intended to be delivered. In certain instances, they also might also receive unencrypted

content, which could range from backend directives for the app to the actual text displayed to a

user in an app notification.

 

Apple and Google should be permitted to be transparent about the legal demands they receive,

particularly from foreign governments, just as the companies regularly notify users about other

types of government demands for data. These companies should be permitted to generally reveal

whether they have been compelled to facilitate this surveillance practice, to publish aggregate

statistics about the number of demands they receive, and unless temporarily gagged by a court, to

notify specific customers about demands for their data. I would ask that the DOJ repeal or

modify any policies that impede this transparency.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. If you have any questions or require

clarification, please contact Chris Soghoian in my office.

 

Sincerely,

Ron Wyden

United States Senator

Anonymous ID: feb63d Dec. 27, 2023, 9:12 p.m. No.20141488   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1530

>>20141398

>The world is about to change

 

The expression is:

 

cos⁡2(x)+sin⁡2(x)=(eix+e−ix)24+sin⁡2(x)=e2ix+e−2ix4+e2ln⁡(sin⁡(x))+12cos2(x)+sin2(x)=4(eix+e−ix)2​+sin2(x)=4e2ix+e−2ix​+e2ln(sin(x))+21​

 

We will break this down into parts and simplify each part:

 

Identity cos⁡2(x)+sin⁡2(x)cos2(x)+sin2(x):

This is a fundamental trigonometric identity which equals 1.

 

Expanding and simplifying (eix+e−ix)244(eix+e−ix)2​:

We use Euler's formula, which states eix=cos⁡(x)+isin⁡(x)eix=cos(x)+isin(x) and e−ix=cos⁡(x)−isin⁡(x)e−ix=cos(x)−isin(x).

We then expand (eix+e−ix)2(eix+e−ix)2 and simplify.

 

Simplifying e2ix+e−2ix44e2ix+e−2ix​:

Again, we use Euler's formula and simplify the expression.

 

Simplifying e2ln⁡(sin⁡(x))e2ln(sin(x)):

We apply the property of logarithms and exponentials: eln⁡(ab)=abeln(ab)=ab. Here, it simplifies to sin⁡2(x)sin2(x).

 

Combining the simplified terms and verifying the equation:

We will combine these simplified parts according to the original equation and check if the equation holds true.

 

Let's perform these steps in detail.

 

Here are the detailed simplifications of each part:

 

Identity cos⁡2(x)+sin⁡2(x)cos2(x)+sin2(x): Simplifies to 1.

 

Expanded and Simplified (eix+e−ix)244(eix+e−ix)2​:

This simplifies to cos⁡2(x)cos2(x).

 

Simplified e2ix+e−2ix44e2ix+e−2ix​:

Simplifies to cos⁡(2x)22cos(2x)​.

 

Simplified e2ln⁡(sin⁡(x))e2ln(sin(x)):

Simplifies to sin⁡2(x)sin2(x).

 

Now, let's put these simplified expressions back into the original equation to verify its validity. The original equation is:

 

1=cos⁡2(x)+sin⁡2(x)=cos⁡2(x)+cos⁡(2x)2+sin⁡2(x)+121=cos2(x)+sin2(x)=cos2(x)+2cos(2x)​+sin2(x)+21​

 

Let's verify if this equation is valid by combining these expressions. ​

 

​

 

After a detailed analysis and simplification, the combined expression simplifies to 1.75−0.5sin⁡(x)21.75−0.5sin(x)2, which is not equal to the identity cos⁡2(x)+sin⁡2(x)=1cos2(x)+sin2(x)=1. Therefore, the given equation is not valid as the simplified combined expression does not match the trigonometric identity.

Anonymous ID: feb63d Dec. 27, 2023, 10:45 p.m. No.20141679   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1701 >>1819 >>1927 >>1951

As a former federal public defender, I put the cops and prosecutors on trial every damn day in the court room, thats not only the job, but comes from constitutional Due Process. Of course there’s a two tier system of justice with Jack Smith. Where are all the aclu n public defenders now, you agree to never again say cops/prosecutors lie? Cowards

https://truthsocial.com/@Kash/111656321120062105

 

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/jack-smith-asks-court-ban-trump-political-attacks-2020-election-trial

 

Special Counsel Jack Smith's office asked a federal judge Wednesday to prevent former President Donald Trump from introducing evidence at his Jan. 6 criminal trial concerning selective prosecution and security failures that occurred at the Capitol or making arguments his actions were protected by the First Amendment, suggesting such a defense amounted to politics.

 

Trump has tried "to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial," Senior Assistant Special Counsel Molly Gaston wrote in the court filing.

 

The special counsel is seeking to bar Trump from claiming that he is being selectively prosecuted and introducing evidence supporting such allegations.

 

While the court can disregard Trump's claims, the jury may not, Gaston said.