I'm not a birther, but I do understand why a large amount of people think Obama wasn't born where and when he says so.
In a vacuum, maybe so, but can you understand why a large amount of people disagree with the Republican government of Hawaii, which certified that he was in fact born there?
I mean, if you're looking at the issue in a vacuum, sure, he hasn't produced his longest-evar-form birth certificate. But the Republican government of Hawaii did acknowledge that he was born there, so why would anyone assume that there is anything suspicious going on? There's a line of text on the very bottom of the certificate which says that it is prima facie evidence of live birth in Hawaii. That sounds like it obviously answers the question.
In other words, if that document is good enough for the government of Hawaii, why isn't it good enough for every redneck sitting in front of their TV?
I'm so sick of hearing PC snobs talk about the keyboard/mouse as if it's somehow the perfect controller. The fact is that they're just used to it
No, the fact is that when you pit keyboard players vs. controller players in an FPS, the keyboard players win. It's plainly obvious why. With an FPS, you have a character, and you need to move the character and shoot. With a K+M setup, your left hand controls movement and your right hand controls rotation and shooting. It's extremely fast and easy to target your enemy when you're using a mouse. For left hand movement, when your hand is on the w/s/a/d movement keys, there are 20 other keys in range of your fingers. When I'm playing an FPS I'm not wondering which buttons to hit or looking at the controls, I'm always looking at the screen. When I set my roommate up, who doesn't play either computer or console games, with a computer to join me in some Steam games, all I had to do was tell him that w/s/a/d move, space jumps, ctrl crouches. I didn't even have to explain how to turn and shoot because it's so obviously intuitive. Even his first time in the game he was able to make his character do what he intended, not dicking around with thumb-controlled joysticks trying to find the perfect place to make your character rotate and face the direction you intend. If you think that joysticks controlled by your thumbs are somehow more accurate or intuitive than point-and-click, then I'd like you to get me in touch with your drug dealer.
In every way, the modern game controller is superior (and it should be, as gaming is what it was DESIGNED for).
Statements like that are just stupid. Yeah, a controller is great for a fighting game or side-scroller, it's fine for flight simulators. It's terrible for FPS games, RTS games, and anything decently complex. Look at a game like X3, and how many commands it has, and see if you can figure out a way to map those controls to a device with 20 buttons. Sometimes playing X3 seems more like typing a document with the number of keys you need to press to move through the menus and accomplish the various actions. It's a great game, and completely unsuited to your "superior in every way" controller. Guess what the reason is why Egosoft doesn't bother to port the X series of games to consoles. Look at Civilization on the console, and how it's completely different than the PC versions. When people fell in love with Civ, they did it on a PC.
BTW, I like how you talk about "PC snobs" and then go on to proclaim that a console controller is superior in every way, as if one device was somehow designed to be the perfect controller for any number of game genres and situations. If it's so perfect and superior, then why do we need joysticks and yokes? What about driving wheels and pedals, isn't the controller superior in every way because "gaming" is what it was DESIGNED for, in all caps?
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye.
Ah. So, it's not really "open" at all then. Following the classic tactic of naming your product/service exactly what it's not (I'm looking at you, Great Quality).
Um... Microsoft is actually an advertiser (well, ad provider).
I understand that, but it's not their bread and butter. This is the Microsoft breakdown for 2010, in revenue, in billions, by division. Advertising is included in online services:
Windows/Windows Live - 18.4 Server/Tools - 14.8 Online Services - 2.1 Business - 18.6 Devices/Entertainment - 8.0
Out of the 2.1 billion made from online services, 1.9 billion of that was from advertising. So, out of Microsoft's 2010 revenue of 62.4 billion, 1.9 billion, or 3%, came from advertising. Compare that with Google's income from advertising to see why I identified Google, and not Microsoft, as an advertiser. Microsoft sells software, and Google is an advertiser. It doesn't matter that Microsoft does a little advertising and Google sells a little software, I'm talking about core business.
I'm a more than a little impressed that MS is going ahead with this. Hopefully this is all the excuse they need over at Mozilla to reconsider their decision.
While I like this move, I don't think MS is being truly altruistic about this. They're looking at their bottom line. MS is not an advertiser, and they don't operate open source projects that are dependent on advertising. So, they have very little to lose by implementing this. On the other side, their rivals have a lot to lose. Look at their main rivals - open source in general (in the form of OpenOffice, Linux, Firefox, and MySQL to name a few), Google (an advertiser), and Apple. Allowing their browser to block advertising directly affects the viability of open source projects and affects the bottom line of Google. It doesn't hurt Apple, but they'll just need to find another way to stick it to Apple when they can.
I just find it a little bit ironic that open source communities are advocating for advertising while mega-corp Microsoft is now in favor of allowing users to block it. It seems a little weird on the surface, but it makes financial sense. I doubt Mozilla will reconsider because they rely more on advertising revenue than Microsoft does. I could see Opera or Apple implementing this though, for the same reasons. I highly doubt Mozilla or Google would add this into their browsers, although the presence of AdBlock makes the point sort of moot for Mozilla. I would be pretty shocked if a version of Chrome showed up with this feature though.
then they charge him again, send out a warrent of the highest possible order for his arrest, for something they would never do that for if it was anyone else,
B) They can and WILL go after the shipper for contraband
How can they prove that the name of the shipper on the package is the person who actually shipped it, and that that person knew what was in it?
They regularly intercept postal-pot-transports and then have an undercover make the delivery, if the person accepts the package, they can be charged.
That doesn't seem very fair. If you want to get someone arrested, just mail them drugs and inform the cops, then they arrest the receiver and charge them?
The packages they intercept are normally about the size of a microwave.
Well yeah, trying to mail entire pounds of drugs is a pretty stupid idea.
USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.
That's not how I read it. I read it as the movie first being "published", by definition, in October 2008 in Germany, which was the world premier. Since the movie was distributed to theaters for the purpose of public showings, that qualifies as publication. Therefore, to answer this question from the copyright office:
If the material has been published or publicly distributed, please give the date of the first publication or earliest distribution and the nation of the first publication or earliest distribution.
The correct answer is clearly "October 2, 2008" and "Germany". The answer is not "November 24, 2009" and "United States". Many of the infringements happened prior to November 2009, so obviously people were not downloading the US DVD edition. The lawsuit further alleges the law firm knew this, and knew that if they put the later date they could effectively extend the copyright term and satisfy the 90-day requirement to receive more settlements.
What the RIAA is doing (and what you've fallen for) is a perversion of that logic, applying commercial copyright penalties to what is clearly a case of individual infringement.
That's not necessarily true. While people do in fact download copyrighted files just for personal access (most people, anyway), that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, now also distributing the files unless they take active steps not to. I'm not sure I've "fallen" for anything, people using P2P programs are in fact distributing copyrighted works, so why shouldn't they be charged with distribution of a copyrighted work? Is it because they weren't trying to distribute it, because they only wanted it for themselves but never shut off the automatic on-by-default distribution? That's hardly a legal defense. The RIAA isn't perverting laws, they're using the laws to stop the behavior they were designed to stop. The problem, like you point out, is that these people aren't seeking to actively distribute this content and, like the dissenting SC justice gets at, it's time we look at making new laws that deal with digital distribution instead of using laws written in the 80s when none of this existed.
I believe the word is in quotes because the word she was looking for was "ignorance", as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
After unsuccessfully trying to find the actual paperwork for the case, but reading about it on Ray Beckerman's blog, it appears that "innocent" in this case indicates that the girl did not know she was infringing copyright. Not that she wasn't aware of copyright laws (which she also wasn't, but that's not the point), but she didn't realize that downloading these files was infringing any copyright. The reason they can make that claim is because she was never presented with any notice that she was infringing, and the RIAA argues that she should have known that they were copyrighted, because the copyright notice appears on the actual CD. Her attorneys argue that there is no CD in this case, just downloaded music (which the girl equated to online radio), and so she is an "innocent infringer" because she was not aware that the files she was downloading were copyrighted, even though the copyright notice appears on the original packaging (which she didn't have access to). In this case specifically, the girl in question didn't even know she was downloading anything, it sounds like she thought this was some sort of internet streaming radio service (or so she claims).
A judge disagreed, and said that if she was interested in whether or not they were copyrighted recordings, she could easily have inquired into that fact (i.e., find the CD packaging and look at it for copyright notices). Therefore, she's not "innocent", she's (willfully?) ignorant (which is not an excuse).
I disagree, when the software is in the process of making the stop on the space station, it is still space-station-bound. It doesn't stop being bound for the space station until after the stop, so the stop occurs while it's still bound for the space station.
If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.
If you steal a music CD from a store, and then make a bunch of copies and start distributing them, expect the same penalty. The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter. This line strikes me as odd though:
claiming "innocence" was no defense
I guess there's a reason they wrote it in quotes, but I was under the impression that innocence, by definition, is in fact always a defense. Apparently not.
If the state finds the package, inspects it, and realizes it is contraband, they will confiscate it. You can get a lot of things online shipped to you, but not all of them are legal where you live. People just rely on the state not inspecting the package to realize what it is. Even legal things sometimes get confiscated. I once shipped a scale-model of a handgun that was actually a lighter, and that never made it to my house.
OK, maybe the 12-inch switchblade in the box was what got it confiscated, and the "gun" just showed up on x-ray.
Fine, fine, maybe it wasn't the best idea to ship a "gun" and giant switchblade from the Vatican to the US, but it was the closest post office at the time.
I have seen a disguised shipment of marijuana between people in different states get confiscated though. That showed up on the UPS tracking page and everything. My roommate lost sleep waiting for a call from the police that never came, they can't really charge either the sender or receiver. The receiver might know nothing about the package and be uninvolved, and the recorded sender might not be the person who actually shipped it. They just take it and... keep it, I guess. To go with their gun lighters and giant switchblades.
That's fine. They just can't ship to California. There's nothing confusing about that. They don't have to "control residence", they just can't ship to places where it is not legal to sell their products.
It's also interesting that the information and terminology used in the patent application is not correct. It refers to "C++ functions" instead of assembly instructions, and it refers to the range of values as between 0 and 256, where it is actually between 0 and 255.
Not that any of that is evidence, but it's interesting. What the OP was getting at is that, even though the patent description sounds like it perfectly describes the algorithm (minus the above mistakes), that doesn't mean it's not possible that they could have been invented independently. It's not very likely, but it's not impossible, and there's no real proof. It would be up to a judge or jury to decide if the evidence proves the allegation.
It's not connecting your personal phone "with their network". You're connecting with, synchronizing, and providing the ability to send email from, an email account your employer provides for work purposes.
Well, if you want to be pedantic then I meant connecting to their "business network", not just a LAN. That would include things like connecting with, synchronizing, and providing the ability to send email from, an email account the employer provides for work purposes.
That's a very sensible policy. You, as an employer, agree that if you want me to be able to work remotely then you'll buy and maintain the device for me to do so. If you don't want to do that, then the only time I'm checking my email is with my laptop (which, incidentally, can't be remotely wiped).
But, believe me, I understand: the company's interests always trump my personal interests. If deleting my contacts, personal emails, and pictures protects the company, or even if you only believe that it possibly might (or even if you fuck up!), I know you won't hesitate.
That's kind of the problem.
Listen, I have zero problems with the company deleting anything and everything that belongs to it, which includes the entire contents of the device if they own it. I understand that the employees agree to what they're getting into, I just don't believe it's smart for them to do so, and I think it's not very pleasant for the companies to expect them to. If a company wants an employee to work remotely, or if that employee asks, then the correct response should be for the company to offer to buy or contribute towards the device. Even offering to hook up their personal phone with the knowledge that anyone who screws up deletes all of their not-backed-up data is irresponsible. But it comes down to liability, all they have to do is get the employee to agree and, if it happens, regardless of the effect that deleting all of the employee's data has on that person, the company is free and clear. That's all they're worried about, I understand.
Right, so the answer is "no, they can't wipe it remotely", regardless of whether or not they want or need to be able to. This remote-wipe capability of mobile devices is pretty new to the corporate world, this isn't exactly a tired, repetitive news item (especially when corporations start wiping entire devices that don't belong to them just to delete the data that does).
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to add a bunch of text to get around the lameness filter, maybe you should reconsider posting your lame post.
It makes me think she must be mentally ill
Did the fact that she's obsessive/compulsive tip you off?
I'm not a birther, but I do understand why a large amount of people think Obama wasn't born where and when he says so.
In a vacuum, maybe so, but can you understand why a large amount of people disagree with the Republican government of Hawaii, which certified that he was in fact born there?
I mean, if you're looking at the issue in a vacuum, sure, he hasn't produced his longest-evar-form birth certificate. But the Republican government of Hawaii did acknowledge that he was born there, so why would anyone assume that there is anything suspicious going on? There's a line of text on the very bottom of the certificate which says that it is prima facie evidence of live birth in Hawaii. That sounds like it obviously answers the question.
In other words, if that document is good enough for the government of Hawaii, why isn't it good enough for every redneck sitting in front of their TV?
I'm so sick of hearing PC snobs talk about the keyboard/mouse as if it's somehow the perfect controller. The fact is that they're just used to it
No, the fact is that when you pit keyboard players vs. controller players in an FPS, the keyboard players win. It's plainly obvious why. With an FPS, you have a character, and you need to move the character and shoot. With a K+M setup, your left hand controls movement and your right hand controls rotation and shooting. It's extremely fast and easy to target your enemy when you're using a mouse. For left hand movement, when your hand is on the w/s/a/d movement keys, there are 20 other keys in range of your fingers. When I'm playing an FPS I'm not wondering which buttons to hit or looking at the controls, I'm always looking at the screen. When I set my roommate up, who doesn't play either computer or console games, with a computer to join me in some Steam games, all I had to do was tell him that w/s/a/d move, space jumps, ctrl crouches. I didn't even have to explain how to turn and shoot because it's so obviously intuitive. Even his first time in the game he was able to make his character do what he intended, not dicking around with thumb-controlled joysticks trying to find the perfect place to make your character rotate and face the direction you intend. If you think that joysticks controlled by your thumbs are somehow more accurate or intuitive than point-and-click, then I'd like you to get me in touch with your drug dealer.
In every way, the modern game controller is superior (and it should be, as gaming is what it was DESIGNED for).
Statements like that are just stupid. Yeah, a controller is great for a fighting game or side-scroller, it's fine for flight simulators. It's terrible for FPS games, RTS games, and anything decently complex. Look at a game like X3, and how many commands it has, and see if you can figure out a way to map those controls to a device with 20 buttons. Sometimes playing X3 seems more like typing a document with the number of keys you need to press to move through the menus and accomplish the various actions. It's a great game, and completely unsuited to your "superior in every way" controller. Guess what the reason is why Egosoft doesn't bother to port the X series of games to consoles. Look at Civilization on the console, and how it's completely different than the PC versions. When people fell in love with Civ, they did it on a PC.
BTW, I like how you talk about "PC snobs" and then go on to proclaim that a console controller is superior in every way, as if one device was somehow designed to be the perfect controller for any number of game genres and situations. If it's so perfect and superior, then why do we need joysticks and yokes? What about driving wheels and pedals, isn't the controller superior in every way because "gaming" is what it was DESIGNED for, in all caps?
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye.
Ah. So, it's not really "open" at all then. Following the classic tactic of naming your product/service exactly what it's not (I'm looking at you, Great Quality).
Um... Microsoft is actually an advertiser (well, ad provider).
I understand that, but it's not their bread and butter. This is the Microsoft breakdown for 2010, in revenue, in billions, by division. Advertising is included in online services:
Windows/Windows Live - 18.4
Server/Tools - 14.8
Online Services - 2.1
Business - 18.6
Devices/Entertainment - 8.0
Out of the 2.1 billion made from online services, 1.9 billion of that was from advertising. So, out of Microsoft's 2010 revenue of 62.4 billion, 1.9 billion, or 3%, came from advertising. Compare that with Google's income from advertising to see why I identified Google, and not Microsoft, as an advertiser. Microsoft sells software, and Google is an advertiser. It doesn't matter that Microsoft does a little advertising and Google sells a little software, I'm talking about core business.
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar10/10k_fr_dis.html
* It will attract ridiculous speculation on what it may or may not do or be.
I'm a more than a little impressed that MS is going ahead with this. Hopefully this is all the excuse they need over at Mozilla to reconsider their decision.
While I like this move, I don't think MS is being truly altruistic about this. They're looking at their bottom line. MS is not an advertiser, and they don't operate open source projects that are dependent on advertising. So, they have very little to lose by implementing this. On the other side, their rivals have a lot to lose. Look at their main rivals - open source in general (in the form of OpenOffice, Linux, Firefox, and MySQL to name a few), Google (an advertiser), and Apple. Allowing their browser to block advertising directly affects the viability of open source projects and affects the bottom line of Google. It doesn't hurt Apple, but they'll just need to find another way to stick it to Apple when they can.
I just find it a little bit ironic that open source communities are advocating for advertising while mega-corp Microsoft is now in favor of allowing users to block it. It seems a little weird on the surface, but it makes financial sense. I doubt Mozilla will reconsider because they rely more on advertising revenue than Microsoft does. I could see Opera or Apple implementing this though, for the same reasons. I highly doubt Mozilla or Google would add this into their browsers, although the presence of AdBlock makes the point sort of moot for Mozilla. I would be pretty shocked if a version of Chrome showed up with this feature though.
then they charge him again, send out a warrent of the highest possible order for his arrest, for something they would never do that for if it was anyone else,
If you browse the list of people wanted by Interpol, you'll see quite a few red notices issued for sex crimes.
B) They can and WILL go after the shipper for contraband
How can they prove that the name of the shipper on the package is the person who actually shipped it, and that that person knew what was in it?
They regularly intercept postal-pot-transports and then have an undercover make the delivery, if the person accepts the package, they can be charged.
That doesn't seem very fair. If you want to get someone arrested, just mail them drugs and inform the cops, then they arrest the receiver and charge them?
The packages they intercept are normally about the size of a microwave.
Well yeah, trying to mail entire pounds of drugs is a pretty stupid idea.
USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.
That's not how I read it. I read it as the movie first being "published", by definition, in October 2008 in Germany, which was the world premier. Since the movie was distributed to theaters for the purpose of public showings, that qualifies as publication. Therefore, to answer this question from the copyright office:
If the material has been published or publicly distributed, please give the
date of the first publication or earliest distribution and the nation of the first
publication or earliest distribution.
The correct answer is clearly "October 2, 2008" and "Germany". The answer is not "November 24, 2009" and "United States". Many of the infringements happened prior to November 2009, so obviously people were not downloading the US DVD edition. The lawsuit further alleges the law firm knew this, and knew that if they put the later date they could effectively extend the copyright term and satisfy the 90-day requirement to receive more settlements.
What the RIAA is doing (and what you've fallen for) is a perversion of that logic, applying commercial copyright penalties to what is clearly a case of individual infringement.
That's not necessarily true. While people do in fact download copyrighted files just for personal access (most people, anyway), that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, now also distributing the files unless they take active steps not to. I'm not sure I've "fallen" for anything, people using P2P programs are in fact distributing copyrighted works, so why shouldn't they be charged with distribution of a copyrighted work? Is it because they weren't trying to distribute it, because they only wanted it for themselves but never shut off the automatic on-by-default distribution? That's hardly a legal defense. The RIAA isn't perverting laws, they're using the laws to stop the behavior they were designed to stop. The problem, like you point out, is that these people aren't seeking to actively distribute this content and, like the dissenting SC justice gets at, it's time we look at making new laws that deal with digital distribution instead of using laws written in the 80s when none of this existed.
I believe the word is in quotes because the word she was looking for was "ignorance", as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
After unsuccessfully trying to find the actual paperwork for the case, but reading about it on Ray Beckerman's blog, it appears that "innocent" in this case indicates that the girl did not know she was infringing copyright. Not that she wasn't aware of copyright laws (which she also wasn't, but that's not the point), but she didn't realize that downloading these files was infringing any copyright. The reason they can make that claim is because she was never presented with any notice that she was infringing, and the RIAA argues that she should have known that they were copyrighted, because the copyright notice appears on the actual CD. Her attorneys argue that there is no CD in this case, just downloaded music (which the girl equated to online radio), and so she is an "innocent infringer" because she was not aware that the files she was downloading were copyrighted, even though the copyright notice appears on the original packaging (which she didn't have access to). In this case specifically, the girl in question didn't even know she was downloading anything, it sounds like she thought this was some sort of internet streaming radio service (or so she claims).
A judge disagreed, and said that if she was interested in whether or not they were copyrighted recordings, she could easily have inquired into that fact (i.e., find the CD packaging and look at it for copyright notices). Therefore, she's not "innocent", she's (willfully?) ignorant (which is not an excuse).
I disagree, when the software is in the process of making the stop on the space station, it is still space-station-bound. It doesn't stop being bound for the space station until after the stop, so the stop occurs while it's still bound for the space station.
Please note, this post is not to be construed as legal advice (IANAL) nor incitement to commit any criminal act.
..nor relevant to any aspects of the case.
This place really needs a "-1: Telling mods what to do".
If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.
If you steal a music CD from a store, and then make a bunch of copies and start distributing them, expect the same penalty. The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter. This line strikes me as odd though:
claiming "innocence" was no defense
I guess there's a reason they wrote it in quotes, but I was under the impression that innocence, by definition, is in fact always a defense. Apparently not.
Wouldn't "The Last Stop For Space Station-bound Software" be the space station, and not the testing environment?
If the state finds the package, inspects it, and realizes it is contraband, they will confiscate it. You can get a lot of things online shipped to you, but not all of them are legal where you live. People just rely on the state not inspecting the package to realize what it is. Even legal things sometimes get confiscated. I once shipped a scale-model of a handgun that was actually a lighter, and that never made it to my house.
OK, maybe the 12-inch switchblade in the box was what got it confiscated, and the "gun" just showed up on x-ray.
Fine, fine, maybe it wasn't the best idea to ship a "gun" and giant switchblade from the Vatican to the US, but it was the closest post office at the time.
I have seen a disguised shipment of marijuana between people in different states get confiscated though. That showed up on the UPS tracking page and everything. My roommate lost sleep waiting for a call from the police that never came, they can't really charge either the sender or receiver. The receiver might know nothing about the package and be uninvolved, and the recorded sender might not be the person who actually shipped it. They just take it and... keep it, I guess. To go with their gun lighters and giant switchblades.
That's fine. They just can't ship to California. There's nothing confusing about that. They don't have to "control residence", they just can't ship to places where it is not legal to sell their products.
It's also interesting that the information and terminology used in the patent application is not correct. It refers to "C++ functions" instead of assembly instructions, and it refers to the range of values as between 0 and 256, where it is actually between 0 and 255.
Not that any of that is evidence, but it's interesting. What the OP was getting at is that, even though the patent description sounds like it perfectly describes the algorithm (minus the above mistakes), that doesn't mean it's not possible that they could have been invented independently. It's not very likely, but it's not impossible, and there's no real proof. It would be up to a judge or jury to decide if the evidence proves the allegation.
It's not connecting your personal phone "with their network". You're connecting with, synchronizing, and providing the ability to send email from, an email account your employer provides for work purposes.
Well, if you want to be pedantic then I meant connecting to their "business network", not just a LAN. That would include things like connecting with, synchronizing, and providing the ability to send email from, an email account the employer provides for work purposes.
That's a very sensible policy. You, as an employer, agree that if you want me to be able to work remotely then you'll buy and maintain the device for me to do so. If you don't want to do that, then the only time I'm checking my email is with my laptop (which, incidentally, can't be remotely wiped).
But, believe me, I understand: the company's interests always trump my personal interests. If deleting my contacts, personal emails, and pictures protects the company, or even if you only believe that it possibly might (or even if you fuck up!), I know you won't hesitate.
That's kind of the problem.
Listen, I have zero problems with the company deleting anything and everything that belongs to it, which includes the entire contents of the device if they own it. I understand that the employees agree to what they're getting into, I just don't believe it's smart for them to do so, and I think it's not very pleasant for the companies to expect them to. If a company wants an employee to work remotely, or if that employee asks, then the correct response should be for the company to offer to buy or contribute towards the device. Even offering to hook up their personal phone with the knowledge that anyone who screws up deletes all of their not-backed-up data is irresponsible. But it comes down to liability, all they have to do is get the employee to agree and, if it happens, regardless of the effect that deleting all of the employee's data has on that person, the company is free and clear. That's all they're worried about, I understand.
And that's the end of this rant, thank you.
Right, so the answer is "no, they can't wipe it remotely", regardless of whether or not they want or need to be able to. This remote-wipe capability of mobile devices is pretty new to the corporate world, this isn't exactly a tired, repetitive news item (especially when corporations start wiping entire devices that don't belong to them just to delete the data that does).
This little "tool" does an include of remote PHP files based on the unsanitized GET request data.
I don't believe that for a second. ..could you provide a URL to back up your claim?