Accessing a phone that most likely had no password to unlock it and then accessing REDIAL is in no way unusual and would constitute probable cause in certain situations.. Also the phone you are referring to was most likely an older non-smart phone with actual buttons where the "redial" is prominent and is easy to access.
Accessing a phone that instead is password protected and accessing, imaging (exact copying), then analysing at leisure ALL the information whether it is relevant to an investigation, or worse still 'evidence fishing', is an entirely different ultra vires matter than what you have described above.
Its interestingt hat you refer to the chain of evidence since that chain has to use procedurally compliant rule sets that a court ultimately oversees, whereas again in the example of the article. That is non existent and would absolutely break any evidence chain or if not give one a reliability and probity problem whenever the evidence was used in a court.
or someone could create a service that allows someone to find their phone (to nearest 30metres), change passwords, and even remotely completely Wipe all the data on phone & on some phones allow taking of picture using front camera.
oh wait... they did on android.. Google themselves call it "Android Device manager" .It's actually quite good.. though there are other services that allow full low level wipes on rooted phones that basically destroy ALL data (internal, ROM, and external) doing complete zero fill or even DoD 5220.22-M Standard sanitation.
Luckily for my professional sanity Apple devices don't have this ability (yet???) using there "Find My iPhone" service.
*sigh* Secure in the context of the article is not in the way you think it means.
Instead it means that Android devices are easier to access using third party forensic tools than Apple devices.
Though this is true in some instances I can guarantee you that I have more ability and ease of access with iOS devices than with the multitude of Android ones out there, mainly since iOS (in all its versions) is actually the same so the same process can basically be used for all its iterations.
Android devices (and this includes Windows phones.. though Win Phones have there own peculiarities) is sometimes dependent on the situations a LOT harder to access, image and analyse. In fact if someone has rooted there phone (which is becoming more and more common actually with criminal cases) they are more likely to add some non standard Rom like CyanogenMod which then using some of the new framework structures and 'root' apps allows complete and absolute control over all low level parts of the phone (bluetooth, access of apps to networks and caching etc) plus the ability to instantly wipe cache's (including Dalvik cache) plus encrypt the whole or parts of any SD card plus its own internal storage.
Basically if someone doesn't want you to access your phone without a LOT of effort and full warrants to search for SPECIFIC things they can now make life a LOT harder for most forensic investigations.
Or do what some are now doing.. Don't use smart phones, use dumb Chinese digital phones that just... you know... Ring!
Forensics (especially digital of which I most likely know a LOT more about than you do) is the methodology of acquisition, examination, analysis, and preservation of information of relevance to whatever the matter at hand is. It's about what is, not what isn't.
And in the above context it is tainted. There is with MS doing it's own investigation an absolute problem with reliability of that acquisition of information. The forensic methodology that they would show to the court is absolutely tainted and creates a huge barrier for it to be accepted by any trier of facts.
It's true, though its also in the same breath absolute bullshit..
Reasoning being that if a company suspects that this has occurred they then go through the civil or criminal processes to allow discovery to take place. If criminal the LEO's will obtain a warrant for the purpose of preservation and investigation since the company is classified as a victim in that instance and will be out of the loop of ANY investigation. In a civil capacity the court will grant a preservation order so that NO ONE can touch it until the court after all due process's occur for BOTH sides of the matter agree that it is part of discovery..
Microsoft in this instance wanted to play prosecution, judge, jury and executioner mainly because they are egotistic enough to think (like most corporations of their size) that they have enough power, status and political pull not to worry about anything like law, ethics, or what the public might think.
AS I stated in the last article about this, the problem now for microsoft is that the 'evidence' they obtained is now highly unreliable since they themselves (a highly biased party with an axe to grind) obtained it by dubious means. The evidence might be a 'smoking gun' might be the truth but now reasonable doubt absolutely comes into play of.. well if they went and got it like that what guarantee is their that they haven't changed it.. See its forensically tainted now.
Not to mention the fact that MS have now royally screwed themselves on a PR basis most likely forever!
I'll also point out AGAIN that a ToS/EULA/Contract has to also abide by overriding legislation & statutes ie: LAW
Just because a ToS states it can do something or that the company has all these rights to do whatever it thinks it can does not mean it has!
Look go read up on BASIC contract law and look at all the standard elements of ANY contract and then you might have an inkling of understanding about this.
Actually anyone anywhere who ever deals with any sorts of contracts daily (that means EVERYONE ON THE PLANET basically) ggo do a basic FREE course on contract law.. it will help you so much and also allow you to understand what companies can and cannot do.
You wrote: "No I wouldn't." in regards to you traveling to another country voluntarily to face criminal charges.. What part of your own response don't YOU understand?
Harassment and 'hate crime' IS an indictable offense under AU/NZ laws, it's also able to be actioned by anyone who complains to appropriate authority who charge on behalf of that victim (whether the victim allows them or not). AS for myself personally able to push for and/or actually write out charge sheets in regards to specific offenses that I have upon balance knowledge of you performing might surprise you. Then again you don't know me either (and I don't explain everything I do in open forums either).
As for the extradition of US citizens your laws require for that to happen that the laws are the same within both the USA and the jurisdiction wanting extradition, that the evidence (which must be presented in full to a US court) would allow committal/indictment proceedings to commence within the USA, that the USA constitution has overriding effect on all judgements, procedures, etc used in the other jurisdiction. So basically exactly the OPPOSITE of what the DoJ requires other countries to do.
There is NO reciprocity nor comity in regards to USA citizens being extradite compared to other jurisdictions citizens being extradited to the USA.
The ONLY fabrication here is you both confabulating and obfuscating the actual reality that is occurring in this matter.
I think you need to figure out that truth is one thing, whereas what you wrote was until proven by a court absolutely untrue ie: grifter, "willful blindness"
And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this. Just because a court might come to that conclusion (or not) in a future date does not make them truth just because you think so and would not be a retrospective truth either.
You keep spewing your hate and troll-like sentiments world wide too.. seems somewhere there has to be a criminal jurisdiction where you are guilty of something..
So it's ok that you wouldn't go and face criminal charges in another country, but you think everyone else should??
that's some hypocritical God complex you have there!
Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a "Fat Fuck" which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc). Could be interesting... you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.
What??? you think the above is unreasonable and I haven't got enough evidence in context to convict you... Sorry I do, I'm just not prepared to show you and will convict you in absentia instead.. so sad
Sorry i missed the part where a ToS or EULA or any contract gives them the right to circumvent any and all regulations, statutes, civil actions, and other varied unlawful/illegal situations.
Agreed, though I'd be very much also looking at the reliability of that evidence since a highly biased legally unauthorised party (and remember this also comes under EU privacy data laws since the blogger sent data from EU and is a EU resident) has entered and gathered 'evidence' that though damning until independently verified under criminal evidence rules could only be used as probable cause.
Either Way Microsoft have allegedly committed criminal acts here under EU statutes and have created an absolute PR nightmare (especially in the currently volatile privacy environment we re now in worldwide) and anyone in anyway who uses Microsoft's email accounts for personal or business use should destroy them and go elsewhere.
It begs the question what other times have they allowed this to occur and have they used it for their own personal/business gain in other matters. ie:corporate espionage, unfair trading, legal privilege.. the list is huge
or better still here http://fingerprint.pet-portal.eu/ and then if running firefox grab there firegloves randomizer plugin (on top menu in yellow).. It works very well
What a load of unmitigated crap with you drawing your own fantasies about what the actual article was talking about..
Lets see.. its The Telegraph, Its a Paper from where I live in New South Wales, Australia. It is a 4 years old article, it was based on a press release that was dumbed down even from the actual press release and was talking about specific vaccine and a specific problem.
Instead you have confabulated some fantastical idea around this article when you have no clue whatsoever what you are yabbering about in the first place.
Let me guess.. You have attended a seminar by some crack supported of Wakefield's and need to justify your ineptness by pointing to articles that bear no correlation or evidence on what we are actually talking about here.
Re: Re: science ... was developed by a bunch of devout Christians, most of them priests
Christianity is NOT the problem , nor any one Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Islam, Catholicism). The problem is ANY religion that is intolerant of change. Since to accept change means you have to accept people having the curiosity, the will, and the freedom to question those beliefs in that religion at the time.
In fact unchangeable ideology is the main problem of most 'fundamentalist' religions nowadays whereas the older churches etc are nowadays accepting that society as a whole is changing and are willing to change and develop with it to some extent.
Anti-vaxxers are Ideologically unchangeable and adamant in their belief that their view of the world is the one and only way and no matter how many times they are proven wrong their faith remakes their confirmational biases for them to redo the whole bullshit all over again.
IN Australia the Anti-vaxxers are quite distraught at the moment since the organisation that was the main Anti Vaxxination push has just been basically destroyed by the Australian Government (state and Federal) and their members are being ridiculed everywhere. Also though parents have a right to not vaccinate their kids those kids are NOT allowed to attend preschoool (6months to 5yrs) Unless vaccinated and Government benefits will not be provided either. Oh and when they attend School (5-6yrs old) if they are not vaccinated there is now a push for vicarious liability damages to be civilly available if any other child gets sick due to those unvaccinated kids. ie: AWESOME! ;)
On the post: Police Utilizing Private Companies, Exploits To Access Data From Suspects' Smartphones
Re: Police and Your Cell Phone
Accessing a phone that instead is password protected and accessing, imaging (exact copying), then analysing at leisure ALL the information whether it is relevant to an investigation, or worse still 'evidence fishing', is an entirely different ultra vires matter than what you have described above.
Its interestingt hat you refer to the chain of evidence since that chain has to use procedurally compliant rule sets that a court ultimately oversees, whereas again in the example of the article. That is non existent and would absolutely break any evidence chain or if not give one a reliability and probity problem whenever the evidence was used in a court.
On the post: Police Utilizing Private Companies, Exploits To Access Data From Suspects' Smartphones
Re:
oh wait... they did on android.. Google themselves call it "Android Device manager" .It's actually quite good.. though there are other services that allow full low level wipes on rooted phones that basically destroy ALL data (internal, ROM, and external) doing complete zero fill or even DoD 5220.22-M Standard sanitation.
Luckily for my professional sanity Apple devices don't have this ability (yet???) using there "Find My iPhone" service.
On the post: Police Utilizing Private Companies, Exploits To Access Data From Suspects' Smartphones
Re:
Instead it means that Android devices are easier to access using third party forensic tools than Apple devices.
Though this is true in some instances I can guarantee you that I have more ability and ease of access with iOS devices than with the multitude of Android ones out there, mainly since iOS (in all its versions) is actually the same so the same process can basically be used for all its iterations.
Android devices (and this includes Windows phones.. though Win Phones have there own peculiarities) is sometimes dependent on the situations a LOT harder to access, image and analyse. In fact if someone has rooted there phone (which is becoming more and more common actually with criminal cases) they are more likely to add some non standard Rom like CyanogenMod which then using some of the new framework structures and 'root' apps allows complete and absolute control over all low level parts of the phone (bluetooth, access of apps to networks and caching etc) plus the ability to instantly wipe cache's (including Dalvik cache) plus encrypt the whole or parts of any SD card plus its own internal storage.
Basically if someone doesn't want you to access your phone without a LOT of effort and full warrants to search for SPECIFIC things they can now make life a LOT harder for most forensic investigations.
Or do what some are now doing.. Don't use smart phones, use dumb Chinese digital phones that just... you know... Ring!
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
why am I not surprised
On the post: To Catch A Meaningless Leaker, Microsoft Made It Clear It Has No Concern For Your Privacy
Re: G Thompson
And in the above context it is tainted. There is with MS doing it's own investigation an absolute problem with reliability of that acquisition of information. The forensic methodology that they would show to the court is absolutely tainted and creates a huge barrier for it to be accepted by any trier of facts.
On the post: To Catch A Meaningless Leaker, Microsoft Made It Clear It Has No Concern For Your Privacy
Re: "Searching yourself"
Reasoning being that if a company suspects that this has occurred they then go through the civil or criminal processes to allow discovery to take place. If criminal the LEO's will obtain a warrant for the purpose of preservation and investigation since the company is classified as a victim in that instance and will be out of the loop of ANY investigation. In a civil capacity the court will grant a preservation order so that NO ONE can touch it until the court after all due process's occur for BOTH sides of the matter agree that it is part of discovery..
Microsoft in this instance wanted to play prosecution, judge, jury and executioner mainly because they are egotistic enough to think (like most corporations of their size) that they have enough power, status and political pull not to worry about anything like law, ethics, or what the public might think.
AS I stated in the last article about this, the problem now for microsoft is that the 'evidence' they obtained is now highly unreliable since they themselves (a highly biased party with an axe to grind) obtained it by dubious means. The evidence might be a 'smoking gun' might be the truth but now reasonable doubt absolutely comes into play of.. well if they went and got it like that what guarantee is their that they haven't changed it.. See its forensically tainted now.
Not to mention the fact that MS have now royally screwed themselves on a PR basis most likely forever!
On the post: To Catch A Meaningless Leaker, Microsoft Made It Clear It Has No Concern For Your Privacy
Re:
Just because a ToS states it can do something or that the company has all these rights to do whatever it thinks it can does not mean it has!
Look go read up on BASIC contract law and look at all the standard elements of ANY contract and then you might have an inkling of understanding about this.
Actually anyone anywhere who ever deals with any sorts of contracts daily (that means EVERYONE ON THE PLANET basically) ggo do a basic FREE course on contract law.. it will help you so much and also allow you to understand what companies can and cannot do.
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Harassment and 'hate crime' IS an indictable offense under AU/NZ laws, it's also able to be actioned by anyone who complains to appropriate authority who charge on behalf of that victim (whether the victim allows them or not). AS for myself personally able to push for and/or actually write out charge sheets in regards to specific offenses that I have upon balance knowledge of you performing might surprise you. Then again you don't know me either (and I don't explain everything I do in open forums either).
As for the extradition of US citizens your laws require for that to happen that the laws are the same within both the USA and the jurisdiction wanting extradition, that the evidence (which must be presented in full to a US court) would allow committal/indictment proceedings to commence within the USA, that the USA constitution has overriding effect on all judgements, procedures, etc used in the other jurisdiction. So basically exactly the OPPOSITE of what the DoJ requires other countries to do.
There is NO reciprocity nor comity in regards to USA citizens being extradite compared to other jurisdictions citizens being extradited to the USA.
The ONLY fabrication here is you both confabulating and obfuscating the actual reality that is occurring in this matter.
On the post: Rep. Nadler Claims 'You Bought It, You Own It' Is An 'Extreme Digital View'
Re: Re: Re: Communism?
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this. Just because a court might come to that conclusion (or not) in a future date does not make them truth just because you think so and would not be a retrospective truth either.
On the post: Rep. Nadler Claims 'You Bought It, You Own It' Is An 'Extreme Digital View'
They bought him... they own him
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
Re: Re:
Lets find it shall we..
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
Re: Re: Re:
that's some hypocritical God complex you have there!
Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a "Fat Fuck" which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc). Could be interesting... you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.
What??? you think the above is unreasonable and I haven't got enough evidence in context to convict you... Sorry I do, I'm just not prepared to show you and will convict you in absentia instead.. so sad
On the post: Microsoft Looked Through Reporter's Hotmail And MSN Chat Accounts To Identify Windows 8 Leaker
Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh wait... it doesn't
On the post: Microsoft Looked Through Reporter's Hotmail And MSN Chat Accounts To Identify Windows 8 Leaker
Re: Re:
Either Way Microsoft have allegedly committed criminal acts here under EU statutes and have created an absolute PR nightmare (especially in the currently volatile privacy environment we re now in worldwide) and anyone in anyway who uses Microsoft's email accounts for personal or business use should destroy them and go elsewhere.
It begs the question what other times have they allowed this to occur and have they used it for their own personal/business gain in other matters. ie:corporate espionage, unfair trading, legal privilege.. the list is huge
On the post: Microsoft Looked Through Reporter's Hotmail And MSN Chat Accounts To Identify Windows 8 Leaker
Re: False sense of security
or better still here http://fingerprint.pet-portal.eu/ and then if running firefox grab there firegloves randomizer plugin (on top menu in yellow).. It works very well
On the post: Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy
Re: Re: Re: one more
Lets see.. its The Telegraph, Its a Paper from where I live in New South Wales, Australia. It is a 4 years old article, it was based on a press release that was dumbed down even from the actual press release and was talking about specific vaccine and a specific problem.
Instead you have confabulated some fantastical idea around this article when you have no clue whatsoever what you are yabbering about in the first place.
Let me guess.. You have attended a seminar by some crack supported of Wakefield's and need to justify your ineptness by pointing to articles that bear no correlation or evidence on what we are actually talking about here.
On the post: Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy
Re: Re: and frankly
On the post: Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy
Re: Re: science ... was developed by a bunch of devout Christians, most of them priests
In fact unchangeable ideology is the main problem of most 'fundamentalist' religions nowadays whereas the older churches etc are nowadays accepting that society as a whole is changing and are willing to change and develop with it to some extent.
Anti-vaxxers are Ideologically unchangeable and adamant in their belief that their view of the world is the one and only way and no matter how many times they are proven wrong their faith remakes their confirmational biases for them to redo the whole bullshit all over again.
IN Australia the Anti-vaxxers are quite distraught at the moment since the organisation that was the main Anti Vaxxination push has just been basically destroyed by the Australian Government (state and Federal) and their members are being ridiculed everywhere. Also though parents have a right to not vaccinate their kids those kids are NOT allowed to attend preschoool (6months to 5yrs) Unless vaccinated and Government benefits will not be provided either. Oh and when they attend School (5-6yrs old) if they are not vaccinated there is now a push for vicarious liability damages to be civilly available if any other child gets sick due to those unvaccinated kids. ie: AWESOME! ;)
Next >>