980 karma · joined September 4, 2021
Setting a booby trap to destroy evidence that then gets destroyed when that trap is triggered is the same as destroying evidence. This is common sense, but also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_(criminal_law)
3.2 Electronic Device: Any device that may contain information in an electronic or digital form, such as computers, tablets, disks, drives, tapes, flash drives, SIM cards, global positioning systems, unmanned aircraft systems, vehicle infotainment systems, smart watches, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players.
3.3 Basic Search: Any border search of an electronic device that does not qualify as an advanced search as described in section 3.4, in which an officer conducts a review or analysis of information residing in electronic or digital form on the device. A basic search may include documenting information observed on the device during the search that relates to immigration, customs, or other law enforcement actions in CBP systems.
3.4 Advanced Search: An advanced search is any search in which an officer connects equipment, wired or wireless, to copy and/or analyze the contents of an electronic device. Use of external equipment (including a CBP standalone computer) merely to make the contents of the device available for inspection (including, for example, to bypass a password, overcome encryption, translate content, view files contained in an external drive or other electronic device lacking a screen, or charge a device) does not constitute an advanced search. Documenting notes and observations, as noted in section 3.3, does not constitute an advanced search.
5.1.4 An officer may perform an advanced search of an electronic device only in instances in which there is reasonable suspicion of activity in violation of the laws enforced or administered by CBP or, in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion when there is a national security concern. All advanced searches require supervisory approval at the Grade 14 level or higher (or a manager with comparable responsibilities). In cases where the inspecting officer and approving supervisor rely on the presence of a national security concern, without reasonable suspicion, to conduct an advanced search, approval from the Director, Field Operations; Chief Patrol Agent; Director, Air Operations; Director, Marine Operations; Special Agent in Charge; or their delegate, is required prior to conducting the search. In compelling circumstances where operational considerations prevent prior approval, notification shall be made as soon as possible. Notification must include an explanation of the national security concern, the compelling circumstances that precluded prior approval, the relevant facts and information supporting the search, and the results of the search.
5.1.5 All searches of electronic devices will be documented in appropriate CBP systems. Officers will document any supervisory approvals required under this Directive and, in the case of an advanced search, the factors establishing reasonable suspicion of a violation of a law enforced or administered by CBP or a national security concern, as well as relevant observations, impressions, and actions taken, as appropriate.
5.1.6 Searches of electronic devices should be conducted in the presence of the individual whose information is being examined unless there are national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations that make it inappropriate to permit the individual to remain present. Permitting an individual to remain present during a search does not necessarily mean that the individual shall observe the search itself. If permitting an individual to observe the search could reveal law enforcement techniques or potentially compromise other operational considerations, the individual will not be permitted to observe the search itself"
yeah, probably more that than LLMs making someone think they are talking to the dead
and cite it as an example on https://grokipedia.com/page/hit_piece
it seems like people aren't even reading this RAND paper, just blindly appealing to it. it basically concludes that a fuck ton of damage can be done, but its unlikely every human will die as a result.
---
"The team's next step is to move from the current laboratory-connected platform toward a fully integrated wearable system. The team plans to integrate wireless components so a future version of the lens can acquire and transmit readings in real time while being worn, rather than requiring tear samples to be collected and analyzed afterward.
Larger and more diverse human studies will be needed to determine how tear serotonin relates to stress and mental health across different populations. Long-term sensor stability, calibration in the dynamic tear environment, comfort, manufacturing reproducibility and extended on-eye safety will also need to be established before the technology can move toward clinical use."
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-09-smart-contact-lens-se...
incapable of understanding speculation?
why
doesn't sound like a razor at all
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/23/world/asia/23...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-c...
That paper outlines a plan to do it, which people have been trying to do since the 70s
Here is one that will launch soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianwen-3
some variant of "oh i am capable of generating text i know nothing about, but it helps to have a human i can rely on to tell me more about the text i know nothing about."
pick up a bachelors degree worth of books to humble yourself
Developmental xenocortication using human-derived organoids in mice
there are also extensions for vscode that do this, vim plugins, etc
No, they don't, see laws that make negligent behavior illegal