The statement reads, "...before sales or distribution." This would clearly include a 3rd party doing something before the phone is sold. So you're still wrong.
And this is why the OP's title makes so much sense (and yours makes so little): Apps cannot be installed remotely on a BlackBerry unless the BlackBerry is part of a BES, so post-sales install by a carrier is not possible. BlackBerry platform allows users to install any software they want and developers to develop any app they want, and since BlackBerry cannot control firms outside their own, the only thing they can state is that they played no part in the development of the app.
Your post demonstrates that you know very little about the BlackBerry platform.
I did not claim that the app would be hidden. A BES admin can install any app without a user's permission, so the user would have to be regularly checking installed apps to see if it was installed. Also, the BES admin can prevent the user from removing apps, so even if the user discovered an app installed, they likely can't remove it.
Again, I will request that you directly point out the weakness in their statement to disprove your apparent lack of reading comprehension.
The BlackBerry platform allows anyone to install any app they want on their phones, and BES admins can also install anything they want. If RIM were to state "Carrier IQ is not installed on BlackBerry smartphones," they would probably be wrong. So the only thing they can state is that they do not install the software; they do not authorize their carrier partners to install the software; and they have never worked with Carrier IQ. That's all they can state.
A BES admin could install Carrier IQ on a phone without the user's knowing, so it is not possible for RIM to state "Carrier IQ is not installed on BlackBerries" because they are not in control of every BlackBerry.
They stated even more than what you stated: they stated that not only is it not installed on the phones, but it isn't authorized to be installed by carrier partners. How is that not a stronger statement? Then they continued on to state that they have never had anything to do with Carrier IQ. I don't understand how you infer otherwise.
True, but you can install any app you want on a BlackBerry, including ones that allow users to use their own keys. You can even get BES for free and run your own mailserver with your own keys. I realize RIM has fallen behind in many areas, but I have to say I am quite disappointed that practically none of the major tech blogs has discussed the fact that Carrier IQ is not only not installed on BlackBerry devices, but it is a violation of RIM agreements for a carrier to install this app on a phone. From RIM support forum:
RIM can attest that it does not pre-install the CarrierIQ application on BlackBerry smartphones and has never done so. Furthermore, RIM does not authorize its carrier partners to install the CarrierIQ application on BlackBerry smartphones before sales or distribution and has never done so. RIM also did not develop or commission the development of the CarrierIQ application, nor is RIM involved in any way in the testing, promotion, or distribution of the CarrierIQ application.
The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, authorized by an act of the California Legislature, was incorporated in 1928 as the official entity to design, construct, and finance the Golden Gate Bridge. However, after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the District was unable to raise the construction funds, so it lobbied for a $30 million bond measure. The bonds were approved in November 1930, by votes in the counties affected by the bridge. The construction budget at the time of approval was $27 million. However, the District was unable to sell the bonds until 1932, when Amadeo Giannini, the founder of San Francisco–based Bank of America, agreed on behalf of his bank to buy the entire issue in order to help the local economy.
Some time ago I determined that the Constitution could not be an ambiguous document to be interpreted any way any reader likes. I have been involved in relatively high-level contract negotiations in the private sector and my experience is that ambiguous anything in legal documents just doesn't happen, and the same would have been true for the Constitution. There was a considerable amount of national attention on this legal document, and I just can't see anyone agreeing to a document that doesn't provide crystal-clear meanings and rock-solid guarantees.
It is with this that I have endeavored to find what the original ratifiers of the Constitution intended it to mean. Ratifiers are more important than framers because the Constitution is a grant of powers by the ratifiers; meaning that they are the ones with the final say-so on what the Constitution means, and on most things they left a very clear paper trail describing what they want to accomplish with the Constitution. The best book I have found with this line of thinking is The Original Constitution by Robert G. Natelson.
With regards to Article One, Section 8, the Constitution states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Natelson states that this is something legally known as a 'special limitation':
A special limitation is a restriction that, whatever its actual wording, can be expressed by the phrase “so long as.” For example, Congress could “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”—by [so long as it was done by] “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
There is no "mandate to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty." The General Welfare Clause states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." This is also a special limitation, as it can be read that having the power to lay and collect taxes is only used so long as it is for the common defense and general welfare. This is a limitation, not a grant of powers. If we were to read the General Welfare clause as meaning that Congress can do whatever it wishes as long as it deems these things to be for general welfare or common defense, then why follow such a statement with a list of enumerated powers? During the ratification, the people were most concerned with an out of control centralized government. To say that they would have given such a government unlimited powers is to completely misunderstand their single biggest goal.
Actually, I do live in the U.S. I worked in Germany for 4 months in 2004. Now my occupation is somewhat different, and if I could, I would import the German toilets (you know the Germans always make good stuff) to independent retailers, and I doubt I would be the only one. It's likely the market would grow as many people are conservation minded, and demonstrating that the toilets use less water than the 1.6 gpf would be very easy to do.
What concerns me most about these issues is that they violate the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress very specific and limited powers. Mandating the gpf of toilets is not one of the enumerated powers, and I think this was Rand Paul's larger point.
Yeah, the runway is a bit odd. The only purpose I could figure was that it allows for convenient inspection, aside from just conserving water by reducing the basin size.
What other types of toilets are you familiar with? In Germany they have toilets with a momentary button to lift the valve, a small amount of water in the basin and a VERY large reservoir. You only need hold the button long enough to flush through whatever your flushing. If it's urine, usually just a second or two is all that's needed. Probably only 2-3 pints. But then, when you've got more serious stuff, you can do 1.7 gallons when needed, which adds up to being much more efficient than the guaranteed 1.6 gpf. I imagine the U.S. water utilities love those 1.6 gpf toilets.
Representation is variable. If a district has 700,000 people in it, the average citizen can expect to be poorly represented. If a district has 30,000 people in it, the average citizen can expect to be represented reasonably well.
I am 8 miles as the crow flies from the nearest airport, plus I have watched these aircraft from a nearby tall hill. They are not doing anything with the nearest airport. I have Flight Simulator X, and in that game 8 miles is plenty of space for even the smallest aircraft to get over 1000 feet. Not to mention that I've been to that airfield, driven by it many times, and never once have I seen a helicopter parked on it.
Do they track any of the stats regarding the pilots that experience these events? For example, pilots are supposed to fly at least 1000 feet above residential areas. In my area, we regularly have helicopters and small planes no more than a couple hundred feet above our houses and I have observed it is the same frequent offenders every time by writing down the (clearly visible to the naked eye) numbers on the bottom of the aircraft, when such numbers are present. I have attempted to contact local air control authority types but I can't get any more than a voice mail. They are so loud that it shakes my house and I could certainly understand how those who are willing to take the law into their own hands might decide to do whatever is necessary to discourage the pilots from skimming the treetops in their neighborhoods.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't wait.
The statement reads, "...before sales or distribution." This would clearly include a 3rd party doing something before the phone is sold. So you're still wrong.
And this is why the OP's title makes so much sense (and yours makes so little): Apps cannot be installed remotely on a BlackBerry unless the BlackBerry is part of a BES, so post-sales install by a carrier is not possible. BlackBerry platform allows users to install any software they want and developers to develop any app they want, and since BlackBerry cannot control firms outside their own, the only thing they can state is that they played no part in the development of the app.
Your post demonstrates that you know very little about the BlackBerry platform.
I did not claim that the app would be hidden. A BES admin can install any app without a user's permission, so the user would have to be regularly checking installed apps to see if it was installed. Also, the BES admin can prevent the user from removing apps, so even if the user discovered an app installed, they likely can't remove it.
Again, I will request that you directly point out the weakness in their statement to disprove your apparent lack of reading comprehension.
The BlackBerry platform allows anyone to install any app they want on their phones, and BES admins can also install anything they want. If RIM were to state "Carrier IQ is not installed on BlackBerry smartphones," they would probably be wrong. So the only thing they can state is that they do not install the software; they do not authorize their carrier partners to install the software; and they have never worked with Carrier IQ. That's all they can state.
A BES admin could install Carrier IQ on a phone without the user's knowing, so it is not possible for RIM to state "Carrier IQ is not installed on BlackBerries" because they are not in control of every BlackBerry.
They stated even more than what you stated: they stated that not only is it not installed on the phones, but it isn't authorized to be installed by carrier partners. How is that not a stronger statement? Then they continued on to state that they have never had anything to do with Carrier IQ. I don't understand how you infer otherwise.
I have a question for the senator:
Does the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act comply with the Constitution?
True, but you can install any app you want on a BlackBerry, including ones that allow users to use their own keys. You can even get BES for free and run your own mailserver with your own keys. I realize RIM has fallen behind in many areas, but I have to say I am quite disappointed that practically none of the major tech blogs has discussed the fact that Carrier IQ is not only not installed on BlackBerry devices, but it is a violation of RIM agreements for a carrier to install this app on a phone. From RIM support forum:
The 17th amendment certainly has some terrible effects on governance, but having 700,000 people per Congressional district is worse. Another huge blow is the Supreme Court's invention of 'Incorporation', which, along with enumerated powers of Congress, is at the heart of most issues, including those discussed on NPR and by the OP.
That article states that the attacker must direct the victim to a site with a malicious script in order to get a Session Authorization Key.
Perhaps you should update the Wikipedia article on the Golden Gate Bridge:
The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, authorized by an act of the California Legislature, was incorporated in 1928 as the official entity to design, construct, and finance the Golden Gate Bridge. However, after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the District was unable to raise the construction funds, so it lobbied for a $30 million bond measure. The bonds were approved in November 1930, by votes in the counties affected by the bridge. The construction budget at the time of approval was $27 million. However, the District was unable to sell the bonds until 1932, when Amadeo Giannini, the founder of San Francisco–based Bank of America, agreed on behalf of his bank to buy the entire issue in order to help the local economy.
And while you're at it, goldengatebridge.org.
RTFA. That is only on BIS and BBM. BES is encrypted with the client's own key.
Some time ago I determined that the Constitution could not be an ambiguous document to be interpreted any way any reader likes. I have been involved in relatively high-level contract negotiations in the private sector and my experience is that ambiguous anything in legal documents just doesn't happen, and the same would have been true for the Constitution. There was a considerable amount of national attention on this legal document, and I just can't see anyone agreeing to a document that doesn't provide crystal-clear meanings and rock-solid guarantees.
It is with this that I have endeavored to find what the original ratifiers of the Constitution intended it to mean. Ratifiers are more important than framers because the Constitution is a grant of powers by the ratifiers; meaning that they are the ones with the final say-so on what the Constitution means, and on most things they left a very clear paper trail describing what they want to accomplish with the Constitution. The best book I have found with this line of thinking is The Original Constitution by Robert G. Natelson.
With regards to Article One, Section 8, the Constitution states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Natelson states that this is something legally known as a 'special limitation':
There is no "mandate to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty." The General Welfare Clause states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." This is also a special limitation, as it can be read that having the power to lay and collect taxes is only used so long as it is for the common defense and general welfare. This is a limitation, not a grant of powers. If we were to read the General Welfare clause as meaning that Congress can do whatever it wishes as long as it deems these things to be for general welfare or common defense, then why follow such a statement with a list of enumerated powers? During the ratification, the people were most concerned with an out of control centralized government. To say that they would have given such a government unlimited powers is to completely misunderstand their single biggest goal.
Actually, I do live in the U.S. I worked in Germany for 4 months in 2004. Now my occupation is somewhat different, and if I could, I would import the German toilets (you know the Germans always make good stuff) to independent retailers, and I doubt I would be the only one. It's likely the market would grow as many people are conservation minded, and demonstrating that the toilets use less water than the 1.6 gpf would be very easy to do.
What concerns me most about these issues is that they violate the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress very specific and limited powers. Mandating the gpf of toilets is not one of the enumerated powers, and I think this was Rand Paul's larger point.
Yeah, the runway is a bit odd. The only purpose I could figure was that it allows for convenient inspection, aside from just conserving water by reducing the basin size.
What other types of toilets are you familiar with? In Germany they have toilets with a momentary button to lift the valve, a small amount of water in the basin and a VERY large reservoir. You only need hold the button long enough to flush through whatever your flushing. If it's urine, usually just a second or two is all that's needed. Probably only 2-3 pints. But then, when you've got more serious stuff, you can do 1.7 gallons when needed, which adds up to being much more efficient than the guaranteed 1.6 gpf. I imagine the U.S. water utilities love those 1.6 gpf toilets.
Representation is variable. If a district has 700,000 people in it, the average citizen can expect to be poorly represented. If a district has 30,000 people in it, the average citizen can expect to be represented reasonably well.
For certain it is anything other than pilots ignoring the law and the law enforcement not doing the job they are tasked with.
"No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."
I am 8 miles as the crow flies from the nearest airport, plus I have watched these aircraft from a nearby tall hill. They are not doing anything with the nearest airport. I have Flight Simulator X, and in that game 8 miles is plenty of space for even the smallest aircraft to get over 1000 feet. Not to mention that I've been to that airfield, driven by it many times, and never once have I seen a helicopter parked on it.
What is a 'congested' area?
Yes, I've filled out every online form and called every number. My conclusion is that these rules simply aren't enforced.
Do they track any of the stats regarding the pilots that experience these events? For example, pilots are supposed to fly at least 1000 feet above residential areas. In my area, we regularly have helicopters and small planes no more than a couple hundred feet above our houses and I have observed it is the same frequent offenders every time by writing down the (clearly visible to the naked eye) numbers on the bottom of the aircraft, when such numbers are present. I have attempted to contact local air control authority types but I can't get any more than a voice mail. They are so loud that it shakes my house and I could certainly understand how those who are willing to take the law into their own hands might decide to do whatever is necessary to discourage the pilots from skimming the treetops in their neighborhoods.
How come every xtranormal video has the male character teaching the uninformed and/or ignorant female character?