Jeremy: Are you trying to argue that you can't make a call from 30,000 feet because the cell phone system won't work?
If so, you are wrong. I had one of those old Motorola flip phones in 1993 and made an in-flight call about 2 weeks before the ban was announced. Reception was perfect.
As noted by Jay, Lobo Santo, and some AC's, the wireless industry opposes the requirement for a warrant because the requirement will result in fewer law enforcement requests for user data and therefore the wireless carriers would not be able to sell as much of it.
I'm not sure however that you need to include ALEC in the discussion to understand the wireless carriers' motivations. The fact that Verizon has contributed to ALEC doesn't necesarily mean that ALEC is behind this.
"...know perfectly well that their arguments are spurious and their assertions are lies..."
Legal ethics be damned.
It is obviously a profitable endeavor to disgorge lies and spurious arguments so long as someone is willing to pay you for that activity.
The main reason people would want to use cloud storage is the anywhere access it provides. The drawbacks are accurately discussed above.
So how many out there will be starting to add personal NAS drives to their home network? The price for a 2 Tb NAS drive complete with preloaded software for internet accessibility or sharing, either publicly or privately with password protection has fallen under $130. Even if you have DHCP rather than a fixed IP from your ISP, it's still practical to use a NAS drive for personal use since most ISP's aren't changing your IP address frequently so long as your router, cable modem or computer are not rebooted.
It's just a matter of time...
Step 1. Individual lawsuit filed.
Step 2. Subpoena information needed to uncover the process used to issue the wrongful take-down requests.
Step 3. Request certification of class-action lawsuit.
"Maybe they don't want to devote the internal lawyers, agents and DoJ's time to file for a warrant when none was needed? "
Read the 4th Amendment buddy...and if that isn't clear to you, then read the SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS decision said using GPS in this fashion is a search, hence a warrant is required.
**GPS tracking didn't just become a search a few weeks ago when the SCOTUS confirmed this observation. It always was a search, and a proper warrant has always been necessary.**
Perhaps this is hard to understand because your narrative is: "Everybody's stealing something so we need to spy on everyone all the time." [Still dreaming of that erstwhile SOPA deep packet inspection clause perhaps?]
The FBI has just been practicing the time honored method of: "Proceed until apprehended. If caught, apologize and go to plan B."
@FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
If the FBI is so worried about losing it's devices, why don't they just get warrants to cover their GPS tracking activities so they can start using the devices again.
After all, they must have been using those devices for a good reason. They were tracking some real bad guys who were a menace to society... right? They weren't just frivolously wasting taxpayer dollars, devoting manpower and equipment to track people who don't really need to be tracked. Right???
Ron Paul has garnered support that he otherwise would not have, because no one else aspiring to govern the executive branch seems to be paying any attention to the shameful erosion of our constitutional rights.
The combination of legal and technological changes which have been ongoing for several years have not yet brought about authoritarian government, but the threat is building; and one wonders when we will have reached point where the only thing between the American people and a totalitarian state is the lack of will on the part of a leader to make it so.
Mike, along with several commenters, here suggest that Feinstein is "out of touch" or "clueless". I disagree. Violated is exactly right.
She is lying.
Feinstein has received nearly 1.3 million dollars in campaign contributions from the music, film and television industries since she was elected.
Does anyone really think she doesn't know what she needs to do to keep those funds flowing her direction? She most certainly *does* have a clue.
Alright, to respond to your point, I'll be more precise:
-->> If you are running a HTC phone, "root to freeze" does disable CIQ, and I have confirmed that it does work with both froyo and gingerbread phones.
The thread you are linking to isn't discussing 'root to freeze'. It is talking about a removal tool that Trevor Eckhart has put forward as a solution to the problem. The thread claims that Samsung owners may brick their phone if the CIQ software is removed. "Freezing" bloatware isn't the same thing as removing the software. Actual removal of a factory installed program is more likely to "brick" a phone since the program is not present to respond to scripting within the boot-up process, whereas freezing merely shuts a pre-installed program down at the end of the boot process.
Perhaps we will hear from someone else who has a rooted phone from another manufacturer?
I'm certainly not an expert on all android phones, but I am running an EVO 4G which is rooted and I can tell you what worked on there. I was able to disable both HTC IQAgent and IQRD using Bloat Freezer. I haven't tried, but I suspect if Bloat Freezer can do this, then Titanium Backup Pro can also do it.
I did not load cyanogen or any other mod, so I don't think your statement that you need to do more than root your phone is generally correct.
Note that Mr. Eckhart has called IQRD a rootkit, but it is kind of a lame rootkit in that it doesn't hide itself when all applications are listed.
There are several apps on the Android Market which can be used to disable anything that comes pre-installed by your carrier, including this spy software from Carrier IQ. You do need to root your phone in order to use this kind of tool however.
At least if lying is not officially accepted policy, the individual doing the lying will have some doubt as to whether the lie may come back to bite them at some future date. Furthermore, acceptance of lying on an official level is a very corrosive idea. If it is accepted in this case, then what about the next case, and so on. It would not be long before governmental corruption would be shielded by a whole new layer of protection - officially sanctioned lies.
So it's a very good thing that this policy is not being continued, even if it doesn't stop liars from lying.
That's fine, so long as the product is optional.
But recall that the lawsuit in question here involved Autodesk. Autodesk software is essential to many engineering companies. Autodesk has worked hard to buy up competitors so the competitive market in CAD has shrunk drastically. You might try another product, but it's owned by Autodesk as well, and you'll just find the same EULA on that product. It's tough to negotiate with monopoly.
The courts have held that EULA's are reasonable because EULA's are contracts. The process of establishing a contract is supposed to imply that both parties agree to the terms. We all know however that the legal mumbo-jumbo in software licenses doesn't accurately represent what actually happens in real life, where people click through without reading or understanding what they have "agreed" to.
The terms of licensing not only are not negotiated, they are intentionally designed so that for practical purposes they CANNOT be negotiated. Everyone knows its a take it or leave it proposition.
It is an inequitable charade designed by lawyers one side of a transaction to restrict the rights of the party on the other side of the transaction.
Why the courts seem to think this national joke is just fine is hard to understand.
As has been pointed out many times on Techdirt, when a law or legal practice is widely perceived to be ridiculous, unfair, or both, continuing this practice gradually erodes respect for law.
If this unilaterally imposed, non-negotiable, not really agreed to click "contract" is a viable contract, then is there any reason why I can't just send a registered letter to a company (lets take Adobe for example), which states the items in the software contract which I have decided to unilaterally negate. Of course it would be written in fine print and obtuse language designed to obscure the real purpose of the letter. If they do not respond, how am I any more bound by the EULA than they are by the terms of my "contract amendment"
They can't respond to this FOIA request because they'd have to admit that no-one is serving on that board and no-one is performing the duties of that board.
It exists in name only.
On the post: Judge Ridicules Oracle's Risky Choice To Forego Statutory Damages And Seek Bigger Payout
On the post: FAA Warns Guy Who Filmed Birds Striking Plane Engine
Re: Re: This myth was busted.
If so, you are wrong. I had one of those old Motorola flip phones in 1993 and made an in-flight call about 2 weeks before the ban was announced. Reception was perfect.
On the post: Wireless Industry Association Opposes Bill That Would Require Warrant For Them To Turn Data Over To Law Enforcement
I'm not sure however that you need to include ALEC in the discussion to understand the wireless carriers' motivations. The fact that Verizon has contributed to ALEC doesn't necesarily mean that ALEC is behind this.
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Willfull Liers
Legal ethics be damned.
It is obviously a profitable endeavor to disgorge lies and spurious arguments so long as someone is willing to pay you for that activity.
On the post: What Obstacles Are There To Storing Your Own Media In The Cloud: Step2 Startups Feedback Wanted
What about your own personal cloud
So how many out there will be starting to add personal NAS drives to their home network? The price for a 2 Tb NAS drive complete with preloaded software for internet accessibility or sharing, either publicly or privately with password protection has fallen under $130. Even if you have DHCP rather than a fixed IP from your ISP, it's still practical to use a NAS drive for personal use since most ISP's aren't changing your IP address frequently so long as your router, cable modem or computer are not rebooted.
On the post: NY Public Radio Station WNYC Decides That Time Shifting = Piracy
Re:
On the post: MPAA CTO Jumps Ship To Internet Society, An Opponent Of Greater Online Copyright Enforcement
Re: Re:
On the post: Twilight Studio Issues Another Bogus Takedown, But Is Zazzle Partially To Blame?
Re:
Step 1. Individual lawsuit filed.
Step 2. Subpoena information needed to uncover the process used to issue the wrongful take-down requests.
Step 3. Request certification of class-action lawsuit.
On the post: FBI Turns Off About 3,000 GPS Devices Following Supreme Court Ruling
Re:
**GPS tracking didn't just become a search a few weeks ago when the SCOTUS confirmed this observation. It always was a search, and a proper warrant has always been necessary.**
Perhaps this is hard to understand because your narrative is: "Everybody's stealing something so we need to spy on everyone all the time." [Still dreaming of that erstwhile SOPA deep packet inspection clause perhaps?]
The FBI has just been practicing the time honored method of: "Proceed until apprehended. If caught, apologize and go to plan B."
On the post: FBI Turns Off About 3,000 GPS Devices Following Supreme Court Ruling
@FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
After all, they must have been using those devices for a good reason. They were tracking some real bad guys who were a menace to society... right? They weren't just frivolously wasting taxpayer dollars, devoting manpower and equipment to track people who don't really need to be tracked. Right???
On the post: Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Politicians' Support For Draconian IP Laws While Ignoring Civil Liberties Issues Come Back To Bite Them?
Ron Paul: civil libertarian
The combination of legal and technological changes which have been ongoing for several years have not yet brought about authoritarian government, but the threat is building; and one wonders when we will have reached point where the only thing between the American people and a totalitarian state is the lack of will on the part of a leader to make it so.
On the post: Senator Dianne Feinstein: So Out Of Touch, She Doesn't Realize Tech Companies Are Vehemently Against PROTECT IP
Re: Liars
She is lying.
Feinstein has received nearly 1.3 million dollars in campaign contributions from the music, film and television industries since she was elected.
Does anyone really think she doesn't know what she needs to do to keep those funds flowing her direction? She most certainly *does* have a clue.
On the post: Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disabling Carrier IQ's software
-->> If you are running a HTC phone, "root to freeze" does disable CIQ, and I have confirmed that it does work with both froyo and gingerbread phones.
The thread you are linking to isn't discussing 'root to freeze'. It is talking about a removal tool that Trevor Eckhart has put forward as a solution to the problem. The thread claims that Samsung owners may brick their phone if the CIQ software is removed. "Freezing" bloatware isn't the same thing as removing the software. Actual removal of a factory installed program is more likely to "brick" a phone since the program is not present to respond to scripting within the boot-up process, whereas freezing merely shuts a pre-installed program down at the end of the boot process.
Perhaps we will hear from someone else who has a rooted phone from another manufacturer?
On the post: Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes
Re: Re: Disabling Carrier IQ's software
I did not load cyanogen or any other mod, so I don't think your statement that you need to do more than root your phone is generally correct.
Note that Mr. Eckhart has called IQRD a rootkit, but it is kind of a lame rootkit in that it doesn't hide itself when all applications are listed.
On the post: Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes
Disabling Carrier IQ's software
On the post: Justice Department Drops Its Request To Be Allowed To Lie In Response To FOIA Requests
Re: Confused
So it's a very good thing that this policy is not being continued, even if it doesn't stop liars from lying.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Re: Re: EULA's are a national joke. When
But recall that the lawsuit in question here involved Autodesk. Autodesk software is essential to many engineering companies. Autodesk has worked hard to buy up competitors so the competitive market in CAD has shrunk drastically. You might try another product, but it's owned by Autodesk as well, and you'll just find the same EULA on that product. It's tough to negotiate with monopoly.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
EULA's are a national joke. When
The terms of licensing not only are not negotiated, they are intentionally designed so that for practical purposes they CANNOT be negotiated. Everyone knows its a take it or leave it proposition.
It is an inequitable charade designed by lawyers one side of a transaction to restrict the rights of the party on the other side of the transaction.
Why the courts seem to think this national joke is just fine is hard to understand.
As has been pointed out many times on Techdirt, when a law or legal practice is widely perceived to be ridiculous, unfair, or both, continuing this practice gradually erodes respect for law.
If this unilaterally imposed, non-negotiable, not really agreed to click "contract" is a viable contract, then is there any reason why I can't just send a registered letter to a company (lets take Adobe for example), which states the items in the software contract which I have decided to unilaterally negate. Of course it would be written in fine print and obtuse language designed to obscure the real purpose of the letter. If they do not respond, how am I any more bound by the EULA than they are by the terms of my "contract amendment"
On the post: US Government Refuses To Say Who's On The Intelligence Oversight Board
It exists in name only.
Next >>