When a computer is seized, hash value databases are used to determine if it contains any known illegal files (e.g child porn) or to eliminate known system files so a forensic examiner doesn't have to look at them. If law enforcement could determine if a cloud server contained a hash value match of an illegal file, that could definitely be justification for a subpoena. Current hash value databases are for MD5 and SHA-1. SHA-2 values could easily be added. I don't know about DMCA. On Dropbox, the files aren't being shared (unless with Dropship), so a user could claim fair use in storing them there. I don't know what can happen if you have removed DRM from a file.
There are two mistakes in your calculation. You calculated how long it takes to be absolutely assured of a hit. One normally calculates how long it would take on average to get a hit (probability = .5). For a 128 bit hash, where one is trying to find a particular match (weak collision resistance) the level of brute force effort is 2^127.
The second mistake was not taking into account that in this context, where you just need to match any hash value on the server, strong collision resistance is required. The level of effort needed when strong collision resistance is required is 2^n/2. In this case 2^64. Your example of 10^14 files, or roughly 2^46 files, needs only 2^19 attempts. A single computer making 2^12 or ~4000 attempts per second could do this in 2 hours. Look up "birthday attack" in reference to hashes if you want more information.
luckily, Dropbox is using SHA-2 at 256 bits. So, instead of 2^19 attempts it is 2^83. With your botnet running 10^14 (2^46) hashes per second, it would take 4000 years on average to get a hit. Still, they inadvertently reduced file security with their setup. They are using AES(256) to encrypt files which requires a brute force level of effort of 2^255 to decrypt a particular file. If you want to decrypt a random file, this effort has been reduced to 2^128 divided by the number of total files on their servers. This is a significant reduction in security but is not catastrophic in the light of their choice to use SHA-2.
However, the other problems their system raises are more significant. (see my other post).
Encryption is very much involved. The files stored in the cloud are encrypted, to deduplicate, a single encryption key must be used regardless of how many users may claim that file. This means, if the deduplication is across multiple accounts, that the cloud provider, Dropbox, has to know that key. Allowing a 3rd party to have the key to your encrypted files is a security risk because an entity can gain legal access through a warrant, national security letter, or in some cases just a subpoena. This is less protection than you would have for files stored at home or business. Having less protection may be OK, but the user should know this.
The Dropbox system is even less secure because it allows someone to infer that their server contains a particular file of known contents. With this knowledge, an entity can gain legal access to find out the owner(s) through a subpoena or national security letter. A warrant isn't necessary. Again, this is a lot less protection than you would have for such files at home. Please note, that if possession of a particular known file is considered suspicious, the legal process is greased to find out who you are. If that doesn't bother you fine, but users should be made aware of this. As Eric Schmidt said:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
"For two hours that March morning in Buffalo, agents tapped away at the homeowner's desktop computer, eventually taking it with them, along with his and his wife's iPads and iPhones."
Maybe this is just a bad description but if that is what they did the computer forensics was done improperly. You might insert a write blocker and do a bit of scouting of existing connections for a computer that was running at the time of the bust. Generally, I turn off my computer before I go to bed. If it was off, they should have just cloned the hard drive without turning the computer on. I cannot see a forensic examiner looking around for 2 hours even if the computer was on before copying the hard drive.
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art Located-- In an Obvious Place to Look
No part of this patent is novel in itself. I was pointing out that there is certainly prior art to deleting entries in external chains belonging to hash table entries. Your point is well taken, but opportunistic removal of linked list entries as opposed to a dedicated garbage collection process or thread is not novel either. Embedded systems often had proprietary kernels that were single tasking at least until the early '90s when it became easier to get a license for a pre-packaged OS like PSOS. Any data structure that required garbage collection had to have this done in an opportunistic way during normal access. The only thing that may, perhaps, be novel is combining all three aspects:
-hash table with simple chaining
-deleting expired entries within the chains.
-do the deletes during another operation (search or add).
This combination is obvious to anyone familiar with these separate parts. Even if there is no other prior art for this combination, Richard Nemes, the inventor has a prior patent which covers precisely this combination. Patent #5121495 with a filing date of Oct. 31, 1989. The only real difference with the later patent #5893120 is the addition of a dynamically determined maximum number of entries to delete at any one time. Nemes sold his #5893120 patent to Bedrock on March 26, 2009. It is not indicated in the court documents if he sold his earlier patent. I suspect not. This may not really matter for this trial which was filed on June 16, 2009, however, his earlier patent expired on Oct 31, 2009. Infringement on the 120 patent should only be possible if the code includes the max limit for deletes. I don't think that part is particularly useful as hash tables should be designed to keep the collision chains short.
For anyone interested, it looks like the code involved deals with route caching. In particular, the rt_genid() function within route.c is referenced in the court documents. I haven't looked at the code yet. From the court documents, it looks like the "infringing" code was added to resolve a DDOS security vulnerability dealing with timely removal of route cache entries. This means the code would only be used by servers that were interested in suppressing a DDOS attack.
The trial is continuing for the other parties besides Google. I suspect it will finish in the next few days as the Linux kernel infringement has already been covered. I think Yahoo is next. What I would like to see discussed (Mike?) is:
-Was patent #5121495 discussed for this trial?
-In patent law does anything beside the filing date or issue date determine the term linit of the patent? Nemes published, in a Bell memorandum, a patent proposal on Sept. 9, 1987. Does this factor into the term?
-Does the 120 patent renew everything? Is 120 considered completely different or can the doctrine of equivalence be applied to 495 to cover most of what's in 120?
-There are two claims involved in the suit. Claim 1 seems to me to be covered by patent 495. Claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 and is the dynamic max covered in 120. IF 495 had expired, then it seems there could be no infringement.
-The jury determined that the patent was valid. Can an appeal overturn that? Can Google, Red Hat, et. al. get the patent invalidated some other way?
-My feeling is that even if Bedrock wins across the board, there will be no further impact as patent 495 has now expired. I am wondering what a lawyer, in particular, Google and Redhat's lawyers think of that.
So, it is curious that Prince, himself, did a cover that was recorded on an album of covers as a tribute to Joni Mitchell
A Tribute to Joni Mitchell (2007)
Prince covers "A Case of You".
There are a lot of talented musicians who do covers, in concert, if not recorded. Varied examples:
The Rolling Stones -You Can't catch me (Chuck Berry)
The Rolling Stones -Suzie Q (Dale Hawkins, Stan Lewis, Eleanor Broadwater)
Credence Clearwater Revival -Suzie Q (Dale Hawkins, Stan Lewis, Eleanor Broadwater)
The Rolling Stones -Love in Vain (Robert Johnson)
The Rolling Stones -Shake Your hips (Slim Harpo)
The Rolling Stones -You Gotta Move (Fred McDowell/Gary Davis)
Devo -I can't get no Satisfaction (The Rolling Stones)
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young -Woodstock (Joni Mitchell)
Smashing Pumpkins -Landslide (Fleetwood Mac)
Tori Amos -Landslide (Fleetwood Mac)
Tori Amos -Smells Like Teen Spirit (Nirvana)
Patti Smith -Smells Like Teen Spirit (Nirvana)
Nirvana -The Man Who Sold The World (David Bowie)
The Byrds -Mr. Tambourine Man (Bob Dylan)
Jimi Hendrix -All Along The Watchtower (Bob Dylan)
Jimi Hendrix -Hey Joe (Billy Roberts)
Patti Smith -Hey Joe (Billy Roberts)
Patti Smith -So You Want to Be (A Rock 'n' Roll Star) (The Byrds)
Aretha Franklin -Respect (Otis Redding)
Otis Redding -Stand by Me (Ben E King)
The Beatles -Roll Over Beethoven (Chuck Berry)
Joe Cocker -With a Little Help from My Friends (Beatles)
Richie Havens -With a Little Help from My Friends (Beatles)
Richie Havens -Here COmes the Sun (Beatles)
William Shatner -Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (Beatles)
801 (Phil Manzanera Brian Eno etc.) -Tomorrow Never Knows
The Grateful Dead -Tomorrow Never Knows (The Beatles)
The Grateful Dead -Not Fade Away (Buddy Holly)
Led Zeppelin -You Shook Me (Willie Dixon, J. B. Lenoir)
Led Zeppelin -Babe I'm Gonna to Leave You (Anne Bredon)
The Who -Eyesight to the Blind (Sonny Boy Williamson II)
The Who -Summertime Blues (Jerry Capehart, Eddie Cochran)
Santana -Black Magic Woman (Fleetwood Mac)
Santana -Evil Ways (Clarence Henry)
Elvis Presley -Blue Suede Shoes (Carl Perkins)
Cream -Born Under a Bad Sign (Booker T. Jones, William Bell)
Cream -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Ten Years After -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Jimi Hendrix -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Steve Miller Band -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Eric Clapton -Cocaine (J. J. Cale)
The Animals -Don't let Me be Misunderstood (Bennie Benjamin, Sol Marcus, Gloria Caldwell)
Joe Cocker -Don't let Me be Misunderstood (Bennie Benjamin, Sol Marcus, Gloria Caldwell)
Joe Cocker -Feelin' Alright (Dave Mason)
Joe Cocker -Just Like a Woman (Bob Dylan)
Joe Cocker -Something (George Harrison)
Joe Cocker -Delta Lady (Leon Russell)
Leon Russel -Beware of Darkness (George Harrison)
Johnny Cash -Ghost Riders in the Sky (Stan Jones)
Mary McCaslin -Ghost Riders in the Sky (Stan Jones)
The Tubes -Ghost Riders in the Sky (Stan Jones)
The Clash -I Fought the Law (Sonny Curtis)
The Doors -Back Door Man (Willie Dixon)
The Kingsmen -Louie Louie (Chuck Berry)
Iggy Pop -Louie Louie (Chuck Berry)
George Thorogood -Move It On Over (Hank Williams Sr.)
Janis Joplin -Me And Bobby McGee (Kris Kristofferson, Fred Foster)
Janis Joplin -Ball and Chain (Big Mama Thornton)
Talking Heads -Take Me to the River (Al Green, Teenie Hodges)
The Byrds -Turn, Turn, Turn (Pete Seeger)
Well, there are many others and such info can be looked up.
Wow! What supports this is that in 1959 there was a meltdown in a Sodium cooled reactor (Sodium Reactor Experiment, SRE) at the Santa Susana Field Laboratories near Los Angeles. Around the same time in the late 50's the DoD was starting to look into a command and control network that could survive a nuclear war. In 1960, the RAND Corporation got a DARPA contract and one employee in particular, Paul Baran (who died just recently), was instrumental in coming up with the idea of a distributed digital packet switching network. The Pentagon liked the idea and asked AT&T to build a prototype. AT&T said, no way, it couldn't be done.
It makes sense that since the Internet was designed and built to survive a nuclear holocaust that, in effect, its existence is encouraging one.
Cellebrite claims they can do "password extraction" on 682 out of the 3080 phone models they handle. Mobile phone forensics and security is not my forte, but offhand, it looks like 682 password schemes weren't implemented properly. I glanced at the brochure and user manual, and it looks like they do "physical extraction" only on the SIM. That may mean the UFED can't access the majority of data stored in the file system within the flash device separate from the SIM if the phone is password protected and they can't extract the password. The other thing I wonder about is the effect of wear leveling on hash signatures and recovering deleted data.
The DOJ speed test was probably done on a 4G iPhone. The MSP acquired the UFEDs in 2008 or prior, and may well be basing their statement on a DOJ test from that period.
This is the most recent letter which the ACLU sent to the Michigan State Police. Apparently, they have only five of the UFED devices. Given that, and the Michigan branch of the ACLU attempts to get information with 70 iterations of FOIA requests, it is pretty clear MSP is stonewalling.
if we are to trust MSPs response to this letter on their web-site, there really is nothing to worry about. 4th amendment protections are being completely respected. Why all the big fuss?
"The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent. The department*s internal directive is that the DEDs only be used by MSP specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children."
If that's the case, MSP, why all the stonewalling?
I don't think mere possession is outlawed. It looks like you can't operate or sell such devices. Title 47 of U.S.C. is applicable and is very much oriented towards operation. They can require forfeiture of the equipment if you do operate ti.
Maier, acting on behalf of the Tolkien Estate, wrote Rupert a polite - one might say slightly precious - letter demanding the association dispense with the Tolkien references.
In an e-mail response to the Herald Tuesday, Maier countered the proliferation of Internet sites that accuse the Tolkien Estate of being a tad on the litigious side. "It is incorrect to say that the Tolkien Estate is litigious, as it is very rarely involved in court proceedings," he wrote. "The Tolkien Estate only pursues legal action in the very rare cases of parties who, for whatever reason, are determined to deny the Estate's entitlement to protect its property."
The Grateful Dead play(ed) their songs at different tempos all the time. Then, when they hear the tapes after they've come down, they try to sue themselves for infringement. The judge always dismisses this early on but not because a different tempo means it's a different song.
A person would downloaded an application and was informed about the application's use of the microphone has given permission to be recorded. However, unless there is a feature which periodically blasts out a message from your cellphone's speaker, other parties have not been so informed. That is a violation is many states. I don't think an application writer could afford to overlook that.
The Shopkick application could process sound locally to identify when you've entered the store. Alternatively, if they are also identifying which store you entered from the sound, that would get sent to a server. A single sample could be used to determine this so I don't believe they are transmitting conversations.
I don't believe Color is recording conversations either. Look to my explanation down further in the comments.
Color isn't necessarily using a hash function. What they need to do, according to their stated purpose, is to characterize the ambient sound of a place so they can identify that some group of more than one person is at a particular place. So, what they need is a fingerprint of sound which does not need to include any particular person's actual speech. The fingerprint could be the result of a hash function, or not. I am making a distinction between a hash and a fingerprint because a hash cannot be reversed. More precisely, a cryptographic hash cannot be reversed, but any old hash may be rather difficult to reverse. One way of fingerprinting a waveform is with a Fourier transform. A Fourier transform can be reversed. The question is are they sampling often enough to be able to reconstruct a conversation? I doubt it, as the point of Color's application is to identify a room and people don't move from room to room that quickly.
If you're in a place where there is audible discussion of classified information then you probably shouldn't be allowed to have a cell phone in your possession. At the very least you would need to remove the battery as some cell phones can be turned on remotely.
On the post: Dropbox Tries To Kill Off Open Source Project With DMCA Takedown
Re: Idle question…
On the post: Dropbox Tries To Kill Off Open Source Project With DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The second mistake was not taking into account that in this context, where you just need to match any hash value on the server, strong collision resistance is required. The level of effort needed when strong collision resistance is required is 2^n/2. In this case 2^64. Your example of 10^14 files, or roughly 2^46 files, needs only 2^19 attempts. A single computer making 2^12 or ~4000 attempts per second could do this in 2 hours. Look up "birthday attack" in reference to hashes if you want more information.
luckily, Dropbox is using SHA-2 at 256 bits. So, instead of 2^19 attempts it is 2^83. With your botnet running 10^14 (2^46) hashes per second, it would take 4000 years on average to get a hit. Still, they inadvertently reduced file security with their setup. They are using AES(256) to encrypt files which requires a brute force level of effort of 2^255 to decrypt a particular file. If you want to decrypt a random file, this effort has been reduced to 2^128 divided by the number of total files on their servers. This is a significant reduction in security but is not catastrophic in the light of their choice to use SHA-2.
However, the other problems their system raises are more significant. (see my other post).
On the post: Dropbox Tries To Kill Off Open Source Project With DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dropbox Tries To Kill Off Open Source Project With DMCA Takedown
Re: Re:
The Dropbox system is even less secure because it allows someone to infer that their server contains a particular file of known contents. With this knowledge, an entity can gain legal access to find out the owner(s) through a subpoena or national security letter. A warrant isn't necessary. Again, this is a lot less protection than you would have for such files at home. Please note, that if possession of a particular known file is considered suspicious, the legal process is greased to find out who you are. If that doesn't bother you fine, but users should be made aware of this. As Eric Schmidt said:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Maybe this is just a bad description but if that is what they did the computer forensics was done improperly. You might insert a write blocker and do a bit of scouting of existing connections for a computer that was running at the time of the bust. Generally, I turn off my computer before I go to bed. If it was off, they should have just cloned the hard drive without turning the computer on. I cannot see a forensic examiner looking around for 2 hours even if the computer was on before copying the hard drive.
On the post: Google Loses Patent Case Filed By Patent Attorney Who Was Helping Fight Patent Excesses
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art Located-- In an Obvious Place to Look
-hash table with simple chaining
-deleting expired entries within the chains.
-do the deletes during another operation (search or add).
This combination is obvious to anyone familiar with these separate parts. Even if there is no other prior art for this combination, Richard Nemes, the inventor has a prior patent which covers precisely this combination. Patent #5121495 with a filing date of Oct. 31, 1989. The only real difference with the later patent #5893120 is the addition of a dynamically determined maximum number of entries to delete at any one time. Nemes sold his #5893120 patent to Bedrock on March 26, 2009. It is not indicated in the court documents if he sold his earlier patent. I suspect not. This may not really matter for this trial which was filed on June 16, 2009, however, his earlier patent expired on Oct 31, 2009. Infringement on the 120 patent should only be possible if the code includes the max limit for deletes. I don't think that part is particularly useful as hash tables should be designed to keep the collision chains short.
For anyone interested, it looks like the code involved deals with route caching. In particular, the rt_genid() function within route.c is referenced in the court documents. I haven't looked at the code yet. From the court documents, it looks like the "infringing" code was added to resolve a DDOS security vulnerability dealing with timely removal of route cache entries. This means the code would only be used by servers that were interested in suppressing a DDOS attack.
The trial is continuing for the other parties besides Google. I suspect it will finish in the next few days as the Linux kernel infringement has already been covered. I think Yahoo is next. What I would like to see discussed (Mike?) is:
-Was patent #5121495 discussed for this trial?
-In patent law does anything beside the filing date or issue date determine the term linit of the patent? Nemes published, in a Bell memorandum, a patent proposal on Sept. 9, 1987. Does this factor into the term?
-Does the 120 patent renew everything? Is 120 considered completely different or can the doctrine of equivalence be applied to 495 to cover most of what's in 120?
-There are two claims involved in the suit. Claim 1 seems to me to be covered by patent 495. Claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 and is the dynamic max covered in 120. IF 495 had expired, then it seems there could be no infringement.
-The jury determined that the patent was valid. Can an appeal overturn that? Can Google, Red Hat, et. al. get the patent invalidated some other way?
-My feeling is that even if Bedrock wins across the board, there will be no further impact as patent 495 has now expired. I am wondering what a lawyer, in particular, Google and Redhat's lawyers think of that.
On the post: Prince Claims When Someone Covers Your Song, The Original No Longer Exists
A Tribute to Joni Mitchell (2007)
Prince covers "A Case of You".
On the post: Prince Claims When Someone Covers Your Song, The Original No Longer Exists
Re:
There are a lot of talented musicians who do covers, in concert, if not recorded. Varied examples:
The Rolling Stones -You Can't catch me (Chuck Berry)
The Rolling Stones -Suzie Q (Dale Hawkins, Stan Lewis, Eleanor Broadwater)
Credence Clearwater Revival -Suzie Q (Dale Hawkins, Stan Lewis, Eleanor Broadwater)
The Rolling Stones -Love in Vain (Robert Johnson)
The Rolling Stones -Shake Your hips (Slim Harpo)
The Rolling Stones -You Gotta Move (Fred McDowell/Gary Davis)
Devo -I can't get no Satisfaction (The Rolling Stones)
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young -Woodstock (Joni Mitchell)
Smashing Pumpkins -Landslide (Fleetwood Mac)
Tori Amos -Landslide (Fleetwood Mac)
Tori Amos -Smells Like Teen Spirit (Nirvana)
Patti Smith -Smells Like Teen Spirit (Nirvana)
Nirvana -The Man Who Sold The World (David Bowie)
The Byrds -Mr. Tambourine Man (Bob Dylan)
Jimi Hendrix -All Along The Watchtower (Bob Dylan)
Jimi Hendrix -Hey Joe (Billy Roberts)
Patti Smith -Hey Joe (Billy Roberts)
Patti Smith -So You Want to Be (A Rock 'n' Roll Star) (The Byrds)
Aretha Franklin -Respect (Otis Redding)
Otis Redding -Stand by Me (Ben E King)
The Beatles -Roll Over Beethoven (Chuck Berry)
Joe Cocker -With a Little Help from My Friends (Beatles)
Richie Havens -With a Little Help from My Friends (Beatles)
Richie Havens -Here COmes the Sun (Beatles)
William Shatner -Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (Beatles)
801 (Phil Manzanera Brian Eno etc.) -Tomorrow Never Knows
The Grateful Dead -Tomorrow Never Knows (The Beatles)
The Grateful Dead -Not Fade Away (Buddy Holly)
Led Zeppelin -You Shook Me (Willie Dixon, J. B. Lenoir)
Led Zeppelin -Babe I'm Gonna to Leave You (Anne Bredon)
The Who -Eyesight to the Blind (Sonny Boy Williamson II)
The Who -Summertime Blues (Jerry Capehart, Eddie Cochran)
Santana -Black Magic Woman (Fleetwood Mac)
Santana -Evil Ways (Clarence Henry)
Elvis Presley -Blue Suede Shoes (Carl Perkins)
Cream -Born Under a Bad Sign (Booker T. Jones, William Bell)
Cream -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Ten Years After -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Jimi Hendrix -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Steve Miller Band -Crossroads (Robert Johnson)
Eric Clapton -Cocaine (J. J. Cale)
The Animals -Don't let Me be Misunderstood (Bennie Benjamin, Sol Marcus, Gloria Caldwell)
Joe Cocker -Don't let Me be Misunderstood (Bennie Benjamin, Sol Marcus, Gloria Caldwell)
Joe Cocker -Feelin' Alright (Dave Mason)
Joe Cocker -Just Like a Woman (Bob Dylan)
Joe Cocker -Something (George Harrison)
Joe Cocker -Delta Lady (Leon Russell)
Leon Russel -Beware of Darkness (George Harrison)
Johnny Cash -Ghost Riders in the Sky (Stan Jones)
Mary McCaslin -Ghost Riders in the Sky (Stan Jones)
The Tubes -Ghost Riders in the Sky (Stan Jones)
The Clash -I Fought the Law (Sonny Curtis)
The Doors -Back Door Man (Willie Dixon)
The Kingsmen -Louie Louie (Chuck Berry)
Iggy Pop -Louie Louie (Chuck Berry)
George Thorogood -Move It On Over (Hank Williams Sr.)
Janis Joplin -Me And Bobby McGee (Kris Kristofferson, Fred Foster)
Janis Joplin -Ball and Chain (Big Mama Thornton)
Talking Heads -Take Me to the River (Al Green, Teenie Hodges)
The Byrds -Turn, Turn, Turn (Pete Seeger)
Well, there are many others and such info can be looked up.
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Re: Kerosene ?
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Re: Re: ASCII porn
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Re:
It makes sense that since the Internet was designed and built to survive a nuclear holocaust that, in effect, its existence is encouraging one.
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
ASCII porn
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:
The DOJ speed test was probably done on a 4G iPhone. The MSP acquired the UFEDs in 2008 or prior, and may well be basing their statement on a DOJ test from that period.
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]
ACLU letter to MSP
http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/CellebriteLettertoMSP.pdf
if we are to trust MSPs response to this letter on their web-site, there really is nothing to worry about. 4th amendment protections are being completely respected. Why all the big fuss?
"The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent. The department*s internal directive is that the DEDs only be used by MSP specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children."
If that's the case, MSP, why all the stonewalling?
On the post: Feds Tell Supreme Court They Should Be Able To Stick A GPS Device On Your Car Without A Warrant
Re: Re: Re: This is getting really ridiculous ...
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0209/DA-11-250A1.pdf
On the post: Tolkien Estate Strikes Again: Forces Summer Camp To Change Name
http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Bragg+Creek+summer+camp+ordered+drop+Lord+Rings+theme/4603 975/story.html
Excerpt from the Calgary Herald:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Tolkien+Estate+amused+Bragg+Creek+camp+name/46062 52/story.html
Maier, acting on behalf of the Tolkien Estate, wrote Rupert a polite - one might say slightly precious - letter demanding the association dispense with the Tolkien references.
In an e-mail response to the Herald Tuesday, Maier countered the proliferation of Internet sites that accuse the Tolkien Estate of being a tad on the litigious side. "It is incorrect to say that the Tolkien Estate is litigious, as it is very rarely involved in court proceedings," he wrote. "The Tolkien Estate only pursues legal action in the very rare cases of parties who, for whatever reason, are determined to deny the Estate's entitlement to protect its property."
On the post: Guy Sues Over 'Da Da Da Da Da Da.... CHARGE!' Jingle He Might Not Have Written
A different tempo, really?
On the post: Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data
Re:
The Shopkick application could process sound locally to identify when you've entered the store. Alternatively, if they are also identifying which store you entered from the sound, that would get sent to a server. A single sample could be used to determine this so I don't believe they are transmitting conversations.
I don't believe Color is recording conversations either. Look to my explanation down further in the comments.
On the post: Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data
Re: from the horses' mouth...
On the post: Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data
Re:
Next >>