Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes

from the now-that's-kind-of-scary dept

Thu, Dec 1st 2011 12:11pm — Mike Masnick

Remember Carrier IQ? This was the company whose software was installed on a ton of phones out there (mainly from Verizon and Sprint), supposedly to record things like if there are dropped calls or problems or whatnot, but which actually appeared to be a rootkit that could track all sorts of info? Then, remember how, rather than respond professionally to this, Carrier IQ threatened researcher Trevor Eckhart with a copyright lawsuit over this? CarrierIQ eventually backed down... and again insisted that the claims of keystroke logging were simply not true.

Yeah. So. Don't piss off a security researcher. Eckhart is back with a video showing how CarrierIQ's software does track keystrokes and sends them to a central server. He demonstrates it recording and sending data, even though Eckhart is logging into something using HTTPS. Of course, when the software is local and tracking keystrokes, HTTPS is meaningless. Dave Kravets at Wired highlights what's really scary about all of this:

By the way, it cannot be turned off without rooting the phone and replacing the operating system. And even if you stop paying for wireless service from your carrier and decide to just use Wi-Fi, your device still reports to Carrier IQ.

It�s not even clear what privacy policy covers this. Is it Carrier IQ�s, your carrier�s or your phone manufacturer�s? And, perhaps, most important, is sending your communications to Carrier IQ a violation of the federal government�s ban on wiretapping?

And even more obvious, Eckhart wonders why aren�t mobile-phone customers informed of this rootkit and given a way to opt out?

I would imagine that lawyers are furiously drawing up a pretty massive class action lawsuit as we speak (if it hasn't already been filed).

Filed Under: android, keylogger, phones, rootkit
Companies: carrieriq, sprint, verizon wireless

41 Comments

May The Dolphin Be Unflogged: Paskistani Government Censors Texting

Free Speech

from the ignorant-sht* dept

Wed, Nov 30th 2011 5:29am — Tim Cushing

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has taken a bold new step in the censorship arena, compiling a list of words and phrases deemed "inappropriate" for texting. This list has been forwarded to the nation's mobile operators, making a brief appearance as a publicly-available Google doc. Although the public permission has been rescinded, a version of the list appears here (very probably NSFW, especially if someone is reading over your shoulder or if you tend to read everything aloud).

According to a mobile operator representative:

"There are more than 1,600 words in the list including indecent language, expletives, swear words, slang etc, which have to be filtered. The filtering is not good for the system and may degrade the quality of network services-plus it would be a great inconvenience to our subscribers if their SMS was not delivered due to the wrong choice of words"

To give you the gist of the forbidden texts, imagine George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV," attach nearly any other imaginable word to those seven, add a couple hundred euphemisms for masturbation, some drug slang and a slew of misspellings and you'll be in the general neighborhood. It's what's lying on the outskirts of this neighborhood where things get weird.

Athletes Foot. Defecate. Deposit. (Yes, I know, but I would imagine some Pakistanis still use a banking system.) Do Me is thwarted by removing a space, leaving Pakistanis with no word for "enclosed arena." G Unit. God Damed Motha Fucka. I'm saddened to see "sexwhore" is no longer permissible, as it has become my go-to texting phrase, especially when contacting immediate family members.

Famous STD gonorrhea narrowly avoids the ban, thanks to an apparent lack of reference material ("gonorrehea"). Of course, infection tends to lead to a burning sensation that also makes the "no-go" list: "smagma."

Got Jesus. (It's cool, though. "Satan" is banned as well.) Hobo. Hoser. Idiot and "idoit." Juggalo. Kmart. Kotex. Lotion.

Inveterate masturbators will be thrilled to learn that many variations have been banned (mastabater, masterbate, mastrabator) but the original, correctly spelled version lives on. Sadly, inveterate jokesters will have to make do without their precious, um, "pun tang."

Neon Deon. Rae Carruth. (Apparently, the Pakistani government has something against flashy/homicidal football players, not to mention the defunct XFL ("he hate me/hehateme")).

"Tongue" gets twisted as well, appearing on the list as "tonge," "toung" and "tounge." #1072-1074 are apparently intentionally left blank.

All in all, a very dirty and plentiful list. One can almost imagine the censoring group giggling childishly long into the night while coming (I KNOW) up with this list.

Many Pakistanis have taken to the internet to express their displeasure with having their constitutional free speech rights violated. Of course, officials are quick to point out that this censorship is "for the children."

Mohammad Younis, a PTA spokesman claims the ban was a "result of numerous meetings and consultations with stakeholders," and went on to point out that "nobody would like this happening to their young boy or girl."

(Oddly enough, "Wuutang Clan" is forbidden, despite the fact that they are sporting an additional "u" and are distinctly "for the children.")

The spokesman also points out that they never thought they'd get caught:

Mr. Younis also added that the list was never intended to be distributed publicly and was only intended to be used for testing purposes.

Supposedly the final version will be much shorter, leaving Pakistani texters only "partially censored" which is better than "completely censored" but still much, much worse than enjoying their right to free speech. Citing Pakistani court precedent, the Pakistani government representative helpfully pointed out that, like many "unlimited" data plans, constitutionally-protected free speech isn't "without restrictions."

All in all, this move sounds like a nanny-state circle****, presided over by officious ***hats with too much free time and way too much power.

Filed Under: censorship, pakistan, texting
Companies: pakistan telecommunications authority

48 Comments

CarrierIQ Fails At The Internet: Threatens Security Researcher With Copyright Infringement Claim Over His Research [Update]

Free Speech

from the dear-barbra-streisand dept

Wed, Nov 23rd 2011 6:39am — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about some research by security researcher Trevor Eckhart, detailing how software from CarrierIQ had all the qualities of a rootkit, was installed on a ton of phones from Verizon Wireless and Sprint, and could potentially reveal all sorts of info about what you do on your phone. Much of Eckhart's report came from a training manual explaining the features of CarrierIQ's system, which he found left free and open on CarrierIQ's website. These kinds of stories show up every so often, and the usual thing is for the company either to admit it wasn't careful enough on security or to deny the specific allegations... and everyone moves on. But CarrierIQ apparently doesn't get how the internet works, has never heard of the Streisand Effect, and decided to not just deny the allegations in the report (we got one of those notices), but to threaten Eckhart with copyright infringement for his posting of their training manual.

Oops. Cue Streisand Effect.

Eckhart, via the EFF, has rejected CarrierIQ's requests... and has called a lot more press attention to the original reports (which had died down pretty quickly). CarrierIQ didn't do itself any favors either, by having its marketing manager talk to Wired and stubbornly defend the copyright infringement claim by saying:

�Whatever content we distribute we want to be in control of that,� he said. �I think obviously, any company wants to be responsible for the information that gets distributed.�

What "any company wants" and what is the law are often two different things. It might have helped for CarrierIQ employees to familiarize themselves with the law first. Of course, the EFF's letter attempts a quick crash course in the subject:

With respect to your allegations of copyright infringement, Mr. Eckhart�s analysis and publication of Carrier IQ�s training materials is a classic fair use and, therefore, non-infringing. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (�the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting . . . or research, is not an infringement of copyright.�). Courts generally consider four factors in a fair use analysis: 1) the purpose and character of the use, 2) the nature of the copyrighted work, 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and 4) the effect of the use on the potential market for the work. Id.; Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994). Each of these factors favors Mr. Eckhart.

CarrierIQ is also claiming false allegations (i.e., defamation) over Eckhart's claims of its software being a rootkit. But, once again, the EFF and Eckhart are explaining the details of the law. Just because you don't like someone's opinion of what you do, or you don't like someone describing factually what you do, doesn't mean you get to accuse them of defamation:

You also claim that Mr. Eckhart published �false allegations� that are �without substance,� �untrue,� and that Carrier IQ considers �damaging to [its] reputation and the reputation of [its] customers.� We have repeatedly asked you to specify the statements you believe are actionable. You have failed to do so, and have instead merely repeated your broad accusations. We believe you are not able to substantiate your allegations because Mr. Eckhart�s factual findings are true. If you are able to specify any statement that you believe is false, Mr. Eckhart will be happy to provide you with the documentation of that finding.

Moreover, your client is a public figure. Under well-established Supreme Court precedent, commentary and criticism regarding Carrier IQ�s professional activities receive additional protections under the First Amendment, because there is a heightened public interest in facilitating such speech. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

And, of course, now we get another round of people paying attention to the allegations regarding CarrierIQ.

Update: And... commence groveling. Just received the following:

As, of today, we are withdrawing our cease and desist letter to Mr. Trevor Eckhart. We have reached out to Mr. Eckhart and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to apologize. Our action was misguided and we are deeply sorry for any concern or trouble that our letter may have caused Mr. Eckhart. We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF�s work on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly changing technological world.

The company also reiterates that its software doesn't track a bunch of stuff and that it's really designed to make networks and phones perform better...

Filed Under: research, rootkit, streisand effect, trevor eckhart
Companies: carrieriq

Innovation In Wireless: The Disruption In Connectivity

Wireless

from the data-everywhere dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2011 6:33pm — Mike Masnick

This post is part of an Intel-sponsored series of posts we'll be doing here at Techdirt on the topic of innovation. Posts in the series consist of a video interview of myself (which you'll see below), the post, and another video interview with an Intel representative and others. That second video, obviously, is content from Intel, but my video and what I've written here was done with complete and total editorial independence. We hope you enjoy the content and take part in the overall discussion, either via the comments or through the interactive ad unit to the right of the post.

When most people think about wireless technologies today, they think about the fact that it makes it easier for them to connect their computers without having to plug in. Or that it lets data flow to their smartphones. But the overall impact can be seen as being much more profound. First up, here's a short video of me talking about the impact of wireless technologies: I think it has become easy for many of us to take for granted the power of wireless connectivity. It's almost difficult to remember what life was like before we had data at our fingertips anywhere, at any time on any device. And, yet, it wasn't that long ago that this wasn't true at all. WiFi has only been around for about a dozen years. Mobile cellular data (at any reasonable bandwidth) is much more recent. And, yet it's become so embedded in our lives. The idea that you can get directions anywhere, pull up information about any shop or restaurant, or even access any content at all is so powerful, yet almost feels mundane already.

But think about just how powerful it is in areas that were barely connected at all in the past. We've read stories about communities in developing nations where small players, who only used to have access to the nearest market, can suddenly reach out to others, and actually allow for competition for their products. That can be a massive change, in that it gets rid of a monopsony situation, allowing the poor in developing countries to get out of a never-ending cycle of poverty.

Similarly, wireless technology alone is enabling new careers and new types of businesses. There are the famous stories of women (and it's almost always women) in certain rural villages, who have built careers out of carrying around mobile phones that can be brought to different farmers, and used on a time-share-like system. This allows those farmers to have access to data and connectivity, but also has provided a way for those women to build up a career for themselves.

And think, then, about what begins to happen as the vast richness of data and information, that we now take for granted, reaches further and further into the far corners of the globe. The ability to do more, to build more and to connect more is going to reshape the lives of the many billions of underprivileged people of the world in ways that we can't even begin to fathom. The world just reached an astounding 7 billion people -- most of whom don't have access to many of the things we in the west take for granted -- including information. Wireless technologies have a chance to change that equation, and what comes out of it may be completely unexpected, but tremendously powerful. The idea that people who in the past may never have had an impact on the world may now be able to reach out and share their ideas and innovations with everyone is a revolution that is destined to bring powerful new ideas to the entire world.

Below you can see a video Intel put together, discussing how powerful wireless technologies can be.

Filed Under: access, innovation, wireless

15 Comments

Court Says Warrantless Mobile Phone Tracking Is Unconstitutional

Privacy

from the well-that-could-make-things-interesting dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2011 4:49am — Mike Masnick

In an amazingly short and to the point ruling (embedded below), a judge in a district court in Southern Texas, Lynn Hughes, ruled that letting the government get mobile phone data without a warrant was unconstitutional:

When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause. U.S. Const., amend. 4. The records show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion. The standard under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), is below that required by the Constitution.

Of course, there are a number of cases out there that have ruled on similar issues... and come to different conclusions. This is one of those issues that will continue to bounce around until the Supreme Court clarifies. Still, there's something nice about seeing a court ruling of this nature, where the judge doesn't waste any time at all, and basically just says, "Hey, 4th Amendment! Next!"

Filed Under: 4th amendment, privacy, texas, tracking

Barnes & Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android

Patents

from the trivial-patents dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2011 2:46am — Mike Masnick

Earlier this year, Microsoft continued its shakedown war against all things Android by suing Barnes & Noble for patent infringement over the Nook. As we discussed, B&N is fighting back in a big way, claiming that Microsoft's shakedown tactics are an antitrust violation. As that effort moves forward, it's beginning to reveal a ton of useful info. While Microsoft continues to try to keep the patents it's using in these shakedowns "secret," B&N has been revealing them. Groklaw has the details:

The patents, we read, "cover only arbitrary, outmoded and non-essential design features" and yet Microsoft is demanding "prohibitively expensive licensing fees", in effect asserting "veto power" over Android's features. One aspect of the license, Barnes & Noble tells us, was a demand to control design elements, requiring designers to adhere to specific hardware and software specifications in order to obtain a license. That, Barnes & Noble says, is "oppressive and anticompetitive". I think it's accurate to say that the company believes it is illegal.

Barnes & Noble asserts that Microsoft is attempting "to use patents to drive open source software out of the market," saying it, in essence, is acting like a patent troll, threatening companies using Android with a destructive and anticompetitive choice: pay Microsoft exorbitant rates for patents, some trivial and others ridiculously invalid or clearly not infringed, or spend a fortune on litigation.

Beyond revealing more of the patents, the company, in its filings, makes it clear what it believes Microsoft is doing:

Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operating systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operating systems market.... Through the use of oppressive licensing terms that amount to a veto power over a wide variety of innovative features in Android devices of all kinds, as well as its prohibitively expensive licensing fees, Microsoft is attempting to push open source software developers out of the market altogether.

Seems like a pretty accurate summary from what we've seen. It's really pretty sad when the focus of your business is hindering others, rather than innovating yourself.

Filed Under: android, patents, trivial
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

52 Comments

Do Tons Of Sprint And Verizon Phones Contain A Rootkit, Potentially Tracking All Sorts Of Info?

Privacy

from the privacy,-what's-that? dept

Tue, Nov 15th 2011 3:02pm — Mike Masnick

Security researcher Trevor Eckhart has put out a report suggesting that a ton of Sprint and Verizon Wireless mobile phones have what is effectively a rootkit installed on them. Specifically, he's talking about CarrierIQ, a bit of software intended to monitor device usage, supposedly for the purpose of understanding problems that a user might be having and helping to troubleshoot remotely. The description of the software seems mostly innocuous:

Carrier IQ is used to understand what problems customers are having with our network or devices so we can take action to improve service quality.

It collects enough information to understand the customer experience with devices on our network and how to devise solutions to use and connection problems. We do not and cannot look at the contents of messages, photos, videos, etc., using this tool

However, in digging into the details of the software, Eckhart realized that it can easily track all sorts of info, including what websites people are visiting and what keypresses they make. The software can also surreptitiously report where the phone is located. He further notes that the software is purposely hidden on a bunch of devices, and on many it appears that you simply can't turn it off.

Now, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything nefarious here. There are reasons why operators like to collect this kind of data and, in the aggregate, it seems useful. But, as Eckhart looked in more detail at training materials for the software, he realized it could easily be used to track at a much more granular level, down to individuals. The potential for abuse seems pretty high. Again, it's obvious why this software is installed, but it raises questions about what carriers are doing to make sure the software isn't being abused. It's also somewhat troubling that the carriers aren't all that straightforward about how this software is monitoring their users...

Filed Under: mobile, rootkit, wireless
Companies: carrieriq, sprint, verizon

24 Comments

Find A Vulnerability In Apple Software; Lose Your License As An Apple Developer

Failures

from the kill-the-messenger dept

Tue, Nov 8th 2011 8:14am — Mike Masnick

It appears that Apple is the latest company to take a "kill the messenger" approach to security vulnerabilities. Hours after security researcher Charlie Miller found a huge vulnerability in iOS, which would allow malicious software to be installed on iOS devices, Apple responded by taking away his developer's license.

The obvious implication: don't search for security vulnerabilities in Apple products, and if you do find them, keep them to yourself.

First off, here's Miller explaining the security hole: To be fair, Miller did get Apple to approve an app that he was using to demo the security flaw. However, kicking him out of its developer program is exactly the wrong response. Miller, clearly, was not looking to use the code maliciously -- just demoing a problem with their system. In other words, he was helping Apple become more secure, and they punished him for it. The message seems to be that Apple doesn't want you to help make their system more secure. Instead, they'd rather let the malicious hackers run wild. As Miller noted to Andy Greenberg at Forbes (the link above):

�I�m mad,� he says. �I report bugs to them all the time. Being part of the developer program helps me do that. They�re hurting themselves, and making my life harder.�

And, no, this is not a case where he went public first either. He told Apple about this particular bug back on October 14th. Either way, this seems like a really brain-dead move by Apple. It's only going to make Apple's systems less secure when it punishes the folks who tell it about security vulnerabilities.

Filed Under: blame the messenger, charlie miller, ios, security, vulnerabilities
Companies: apple

78 Comments

Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'

from the you-don't-own-what-you-thought-you-own dept

Fri, Nov 4th 2011 4:00am — Mike Masnick

When Google, Amazon and Apple all entered the "cloud music" space at about the same time, we pointed out that we seemed to be missing the real point of the cloud. That was, that all of the services required the storage provider's own client app to play the music stored there. As I noted, that's not what the promise of the cloud is. It should be about being able to store data in the cloud and then let any relevant app access that data through an API. It's positively ridiculous that the (all legal, by the way) music I have is stored in multiple places in the cloud. For years, I've backed it up with a person Amazon S3 account. But when Amazon launched its cloud music player, I couldn't just point the player to my S3 storage, but had to re-upload. Then when Google launched its Music Beta... re-upload. The best player in the space may be MP3Tunes, who is the most open and willing to let third parties in. But most of the big guys are limited.

So it's interesting to see that some folks are writing third party apps to access music in Google and Amazon's cloud... but apparently Amazon flipped out about the aMusic iPhone app and, as sent in by Jeffrey Nonken, politely asked the developer to kill the app, noting that since Apple doesn't have licenses that "allow" third party access, he has to wait until they have such licenses.

This is, to put it mildly, stupid. If I have legally obtained files, and I put them in a locker where only I have the legal access to them, why shouldn't I be able to point any app I want at it. This would be like saying that if I had a cllient side app playing music on my hard drive, I couldn't then get another app to play the same files... unless the hard drive maker got the right "licenses" from the record labels. How does that make any sense at all?

This is definitely a big problem with "cloud" services these days however, where folks like the record labels think they retain ownership and control of files that people think they legally "own," limiting how they can listen to them. That seems to give the labels much greater rights than are reasonable granted under copyright law... just because the files are stored at a data center, rather than on a local hard drive.

Filed Under: access, apps, cloud, copyright, licensing, streaming

51 Comments

The Real Issue With Apple's 'Slide-To-Unlock' Patent: Double Patenting & Bogus Continuations

Patents

from the don't-stop-'til-you-get-enough dept

Wed, Nov 2nd 2011 4:40am — Mike Masnick

Lots of folks sent in variations on the story last week that Apple was able to get a patent on the "slide to unlock" feature. Most of the submissions were outraged that this patent was granted, with many pointing to prior art from before the patent was filed. What most people missed was that this patent, 8,046,721 is actually a continuation patent from an earlier patent, 7,657,849.

The real issue here isn't just that Apple was able to patent something as simple as "slide to unlock," but how it shows the evils of double patenting and the use of continuation patents. We've pointed to problems with continuation patents in the past, in that they have been used to "submarine" legitimate inventions. You could just watch what others were doing in the space, and file a later "continuation" patent on your earlier patent, and have an earlier priority date, despite actually copying the work from others.

The M-CAM document linked above looks deeply at the patents in question, noting how the claims in Apple's original patent were completely rejected three separate times. For whatever reason, the USPTO refuses to really issue final rejections. So those desiring patents, can just keep adjusting and adjusting. The document also is left wondering how come the original claims were rejected while the final claims somehow made it through, noting that the changes seem meaningless:

As the report notes: "Evidently, restating the purpose of the patent � that one touches and drags the image continuously � makes it novel and nonobvious after three rejections."

M-CAM's analysis highlights the massive failure of the USPTO examiner here:

First, there are over eight hundred relevant patents that precede the �721 by a year, that both Apple and Mr. Gutierrez fail to cite, though 38 of these are owned by Apple themselves. The entities in this relevant space are displayed visually to the right.

In addition, we have a list of 120 related patents, with priority dates of a year before both slide-to-unlock patents, that are in the public domain (read: this technology is FREE TO USE and NOT PATENTABLE AGAIN). A sample of these can be found in Appendix A.

But we�re not done. Going back to the patents the examiner used as evidence to reject the claims of the �721 patent � the Tokkonen patent, which is owned by Nokia, and the Gauthey patent, which is owned by Asulab (the R&D division of Swatch Group) � we see that they both deal with either inputting a security code or controlling lock functions. We look at one patent that is never acknowledged by Apple (though it�s been cited by IBM, Microsoft and Nokia in their touch-screen patents), U.S. 6,209,104 which actually provides context for the innovations that the examiner thought to be relevant against Apple � patents that include but are far from limited to the patents the examiner actually considered.

In other words, this patent never should have been granted, and it used the almost always questionable "continuation" process to patent something fairly common, with lots of prior art. Good thing the patent reform bill that recently passed doesn't touch on any of this stuff.

Filed Under: continuations, patents, slide to unlock
Companies: apple

32 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
19:33	What's The Most Expensive WiFi You've Seen? (69)
11:35	Wireless Carriers Finally Cave On Overage Fees; Reluctantly Agree To Stop Treating Customers Like ATMs (66)
Friday
19:39	Steve Jobs Was Willing To 'Rip Off' Everyone Else... But Was Pissed About Android Copying iPhone? (310)
Wednesday
04:59	UAE Claims Blackberry Outage Resulted In Fewer Car Accidents (18)
Tuesday
15:13	Everything Old Is New Again: 7 Years Ago Someone Else Tried To Sue WiFi Hotspot Operators Too (15)
Monday
11:28	Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage' (94)
Friday
19:39	Microsoft-Samsung Licensing Deal Tells Us Nothing About The Facts, Just About The FUD (48)
05:20	DOJ Document Shows How Long Telcos Hold Onto Your Data (17)
Monday
12:28	Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones (84)
07:08	Will California's Governor Outlaw Police From Searching Mobile Phones Without A Warrant? (41)
02:26	Austin Police Planned... Then Postponed Wardriving Plans In An Attempt To Shutdown Open WiFi (90)
Thursday
13:45	FOIA Info Reveals That BART Shut Down Cell Service With One Email To Telco Partner (25)
Friday
16:43	iPhone Developer Creates App Criticizing The iPhone; App Is Quickly Pulled (24)
14:23	Man Claims Apple Investigators Pretended To Be SF Police In Searching For Lost iPhone Prototype [Updated: Or Not] (49)
Thursday
15:13	HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community (62)
Wednesday
23:07	Are Any Of The Patents Google Got With Motorola Mobility Any Good? (39)
12:55	Surprise: Justice Department Says AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Would Be Anticompetitive (31)
06:42	FCC Asked For Declaratory Ruling That BART Shutting Off Mobile Phone Service Was Illegal (28)
Monday
12:28	BART Bosses Say Phone Shutoff Will Only Be Used In 'Extreme Situations' Going Forward (55)
Thursday
19:00	FCC Asks AT&T To Explain Discrepancy Over Claimed Need For T-Mobile vs. Internal Discussions (15)
Wednesday
14:00	A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal (62)
Tuesday
22:24	Could Google's Motorola Buy To Fend Off Microsoft... Actually Drive More Business To Microsoft? (60)
Friday
11:48	No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000 (205)
Thursday
19:00	Once Again, Basic Detective Work Tracks Down Criminal Activity Done On Open WiFi (24)
12:33	Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'? (235)
Tuesday
19:06	What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility (38)
08:31	FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law (96)
Monday
15:03	Google Spends $12.5 Billion To Buy Motorola Mobility... And Its Patents (38)
Friday
15:57	AT&T Accidentally Reveals That It Doesn't Need T-Mobile At All (22)
14:59	BART Turns Off Mobile Phone Service At Station Because It Doesn't Want Protestors To Communicate (86)

from the now-that's-kind-of-scary dept

from the ignorant-sh*t dept

from the dear-barbra-streisand dept

from the data-everywhere dept

from the well-that-could-make-things-interesting dept

from the trivial-patents dept

from the privacy,-what's-that? dept

from the kill-the-messenger dept

from the you-don't-own-what-you-thought-you-own dept

from the don't-stop-'til-you-get-enough dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the ignorant-sht* dept