It's a physical connection. They attach your cellphone to their device and it grabs all data on board. Full disk encryption of the phone would stop this, unless they are slurping it from a a part of RAM that's already been de-encrypted by the OS.
Not that there are many phones that offer full disk encryption . . .
Or if a barge asbestos in its products. In short, the harms from the application of the least-costavoider principle in tort law are observable and do not threaten adverse unanticipated effects across other sectors of the economy fortifies its hull to prevent oil spills. Or if a manufacturer reduces the use of
Should be:
Or if a barge fortifies its hull to prevent oil spills. Or if a manufacturer reduces the use of asbestos in its products. In short, the harms from the application of the least-costavoider principle in tort law are observable and do not threaten adverse unanticipated effects across other sectors of the economy.
The only people who have an absolute right to privacy in full view of the public are the police. "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" is only applicable to the serfs, after all.
I've actually been trying to determine if the mere possession of a jamming device is illegal, or only the use of one. Does anyone know? I've been unable to find a definitive answer on the question.
If they are getting both barrels of Apple's BS, Apple must be worried they're losing the innovation race. Time to check out Samsung, I guess; Apple seems to think they've got a really good product.
And Isaac heard their lamentations and gathered unto him an alliance. He spake to them in urgent tones full of vigor and perhaps some illicit substances.
He said, "Is it just me or are my hands reaaaallly big right now?
New rule: Patent applications are placed out for public scrutiny (crowd-sourced, essentially) for X number of days before a patent examiner ever looks at them. Then the patent examiner takes the public comments on the application together with the applicant's comments to make their decision.
No extra work required beyond sorting through the public comments, and it may save a lot of time when looking for prior art.
Even easier solution: Abolish the patent system entirely. Slightly less likely though. ;)
The problem is that a lot of the feature requests are general, and even if the feature is obviously required for functionality, there's no way to limit how it's used afterwards.
As an example, ShopSavvy just required a manual update for me. It requests access to the camera. Obviously, it needs access to read barcodes and such. But who's to say what else it uses the camera for?
I think the government will have a hard time trying to do anything even if it is useful if they continue down that path, they are damaging their public image and probably nobody will trust them to do anything and will move to block anything they try to do.
You assume that public anger or resentment will change anything.
again shows the arrogance of Google engineers, who give little respect to civil society and its accepted rules of conduct.
Again? When was the first time? Funny how the haters jump on to the bandwagon immediately and start making accusations without cause, merely because it's Google.
It just goes to show you: people hate success in others. Make something new and game-changing and people will line up in droves, either with their hand out pleading for cash, or with a club in their hand demanding it "or else". And if refuse, well, that's what we have a government for.
On the post: Michigan State Police Say It'll Cost $545k To Discover What Info It's Copying Off Mobile Phones During Traffic Stops [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
I believe it's the "Shut Up And Do What I Tell You Before I Cave Your Face In With My Baton" act.
On the post: iPhone & iPad Recording Your Every Move
On the post: Michigan State Police Say It'll Cost $545k To Discover What Info It's Copying Off Mobile Phones During Traffic Stops [Updated]
Re: phone snooping
Not that there are many phones that offer full disk encryption . . .
On the post: Feds Tell Supreme Court They Should Be Able To Stick A GPS Device On Your Car Without A Warrant
Re: Re: Better Get Used to It
On the post: Feds Tell Supreme Court They Should Be Able To Stick A GPS Device On Your Car Without A Warrant
Re:
I say, drown it in the sink and toss it out with the garbage. When they come knocking, shrug. ;)
On the post: Why Arguing That Google Is In The Best Position To Stop Infringement Is Wrong
Mangled Paragraphs
Should be:
Or if a barge fortifies its hull to prevent oil spills. Or if a manufacturer reduces the use of asbestos in its products. In short, the harms from the application of the least-costavoider principle in tort law are observable and do not threaten adverse unanticipated effects across other sectors of the economy.
I think.
On the post: Feds Tell Supreme Court They Should Be Able To Stick A GPS Device On Your Car Without A Warrant
Better Get Used to It
On the post: Feds Tell Supreme Court They Should Be Able To Stick A GPS Device On Your Car Without A Warrant
Re: Re: This is getting really ridiculous ...
On the post: Details Of Apple's Lawsuit Against Samsung Revealed; And It's Even More Ridiculous
Yep
On the post: The Pirate Party Not Pirate-y Enough For You? Maybe You Need Kopimism, The Official Pirate Religion
Re:
And Isaac heard their lamentations and gathered unto him an alliance. He spake to them in urgent tones full of vigor and perhaps some illicit substances.
He said, "Is it just me or are my hands reaaaallly big right now?
On the post: Is The FDA Helping Or Hindering Medical Innovation?
I will: Let's get rid of the FDA.
On the post: Not Just YouTube's Copyright School Video That Has Problems... The Quizzes Are Misleading Too
Re: Offer Alternative Questions
Q. Do you have money to fight the record companies in court?
A. If you answered "no", you're infringing.
On the post: A Succinct Description For Why Assuming Patent Validity Is A Problem
Re: Political Economics...
New rule: Patent applications are placed out for public scrutiny (crowd-sourced, essentially) for X number of days before a patent examiner ever looks at them. Then the patent examiner takes the public comments on the application together with the applicant's comments to make their decision.
No extra work required beyond sorting through the public comments, and it may save a lot of time when looking for prior art.
Even easier solution: Abolish the patent system entirely. Slightly less likely though. ;)
On the post: Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data
Re:
As an example, ShopSavvy just required a manual update for me. It requests access to the camera. Obviously, it needs access to read barcodes and such. But who's to say what else it uses the camera for?
On the post: Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...
Meh
Amateurs.
On the post: TSA Says 'You Might Be A Terrorist If... You Complain About The TSA'
Re:
You assume that public anger or resentment will change anything.
On the post: Microsoft's Bizarre And Misleading Statement About Google In Gov't Procurement Fight
Err, what?
Again? When was the first time? Funny how the haters jump on to the bandwagon immediately and start making accusations without cause, merely because it's Google.
It just goes to show you: people hate success in others. Make something new and game-changing and people will line up in droves, either with their hand out pleading for cash, or with a club in their hand demanding it "or else". And if refuse, well, that's what we have a government for.
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re:
"New medium", haha. Awesome.
On the post: Guy Who Didn't Actually Sing Obscene Song To Kids Gets Jail Time & Restraining Order As If He Did
Could be Worse
This is seriously disturbing.
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Re: Re:
Next >>