dudeami0

It's is M.2, but not the M/B+M key most M2 SSDs use but rather a A+E meant for WIFI/Bluetooth. According to this video it's essentially 2 PCI Express x1 lanes and USB 2.0. The video goes on to explain some possible alternative uses:

• A gigabit ethernet adapter
• 2x SATA ports for a standard SATA drive
• Coral tensor processor
• SD card reader
• 2x USB A-type ports
• Some type of SIM card adapter (video wasn't quite sure on it either)
• A PCI Express x16 slot that only functionally works as a x1

So while does this slot has it's uses, it's not meant to be used for M.2 drives but rather WIFI.

Should work fine as a proxy for HTTP traffic. If you want to forward all your traffic through your home IP I'd suggest using a VPN, using openvpn or wireguard.

It does when ya got nosey IT at a university whacking ports for standard proxy services. And doesn't hurt to do it either, the port is arbitrary. Also they state:

which will only allow authenticated users through.

So it sounds like they have proper authentication enabled.

To add to this spending some time in custody is inconvenient, but losing your rights being convicted of something you didn't even do is more inconvenient. You think you know what to say until you say the wrong thing and start digging a hole.

This is good to know, but adds an additional step to simply requiring a passcode to unlock on screen lock.

Just the act of refusing makes the act of seizing your phone legal or not. If you legally give them your phone by your own will, they are able to use all evidence they find in the courts. If you deny to give them your phone, and they seize it anyways and access it you have a valid path to throw the evidence they discover out as an illegal search and seizure of your property. I'm not a lawyer but that is the general thought process on denying them access to your property.

Edit: Just want to say this mostly pretains to United States law and similar legal structures. This advice is not applicable everywhere and you should research your countries rights and legal protections.

I personally rather trust that my device isn't able to be unlocked without my permission, rather than hope I am able to do some action to disable it in certain situations. The availability of such features is nice, but I would assume I would be incapable of performing such actions in the moment.

My other thought is, how guilty is one perceived if they immediately attempt to lock their phones in such a matter, by a jury of their peers? I rather go the deniability route of I didn't want to share my passcode vs I locked my phone down cause the cops were grabbing me.

To add to this, don't use bio-metrics to lock your devices. Cops will "accidentally" use these to unlock devices when they are forcibly seized.

I would agree on the investigation ensuring everything was done diligently and to protocol. I don't think it's some international political issue that the US is waging on it, just that they are an individual traveling to be euthanized it might be seen as murder in the individuals native courts. The United States still having issues letting people go state to state for treatment, let alone internationally, causes me pause in such situations.

I'll be the first to admit I have no real knowledge on the laws that apply here but the United States has been known to inject themselves into other nations matters regularly. This is again just opinion and no way substantiated by anything tangible.

Edit: To add to this, this MSN article seems to give additional information. Specifically, the following quotes:

The American woman who became the first person to take her own life in the new “suicide pod” in Switzerland was given a chilling command by the morbid machine before she took her last breaths.

“If you want to die, press this button,” the machine said, according to the AFP.

So most likely this is due to being the first incident of voluntary euthanasia being legally done in Switzerland, and ensuring the legality of such procedures via precedent for future such cases.

The quotation marks did most of the lifting there, and it's more of an anecdote of their own projections against themselves. They assume these "welfare queens" are driving around in high end cars and living luxurious lifestyles on the governments dollar, while they are the ones doing such. Sorry if there was any confusion. I agree with all the statements you have stated against Brett Farve though, they are the scum of the system they wish to project onto others.

From the article:

Police in the canton of Schaffhausen, in northern Switzerland, confirmed the arrests, while the public prosecutors’ office confirmed it had opened an investigation into suspected incitement and aiding and abetting of suicide.

The person who died was reportedly a 64-year-old American woman. Switzerland is one of the few countries in the world where assisted suicide is legal, under certain conditions.

But the article does state that the interior minister does question the morality and legality of the device:

Switzerland’s interior minister, Élisabeth Baume-Schneider, questioned the moral and legal status of the Sarco Pod, a device that is designed to allow a person inside to push a button that injects nitrogen gas into the sealed chamber.

It's hard to say why the arrests happened without more details, but I'd suspect the nationality of the individual may play a role.

Despite texts that show Favre sought to keep his receipt of the funds confidential, Favre has said he didn’t know the money came from federal funds intended for poor people. He’s paid the money back, but he’s being sued by the state of Mississippi for hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that accrued on the money he received. Favre hasn’t been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Source: (Yahoo News)

So they could easily of have funded this themselves, but just rather steal public funds because "free money"? Sounds like a so called "welfare queen" to me.