Uhhh, no it isn't. You wouldn't consider it a search if they followed you around, would you?
Actually, according to the law of the state in which I reside, it is technically harassment for law enforcement to follow a vehicle for more than a mile without pulling it over.
I have a right to be "secure in [my] person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
Where is the search or seizure here? They aren't looking into your car, nor are they depriving you of its use.
Recording my movements to use against me in court is very much a search. Installing equipment on my vehicle for the purpose of said recording also constitutes a search.
Of course, so long as "intellectuals" continue to wax philosophic in regards as to what constitutes a search and what does not, the police state will continue to remove our rights until no more exist.
The administration, which is attempting to overturn a lower court ruling that threw out a drug dealer’s conviction over the warrantless use of a tracker, argues that citizens have no expectation of privacy when it comes to their movements in public so officers don’t need to get a warrant to use such devices.
The irony, of course, is how bent out of shape public servants get when you turn the tables and record them.
A serious question, one that I hope folks take seriously because I truly cannot answer this:
If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?
I struggle for an answer myself. It feels wrong, but as far as I can tell that isn't a valid legal argument.
Depends on whether you believe the U.S. Constitution is the supreme, un-supercede-able law of the land, or if you're one of those scared-of-your-own-shadow types who thinks that taking away our freedoms for the illusion of security is acceptable.
Obviously, I happen to be of the former mentality, and according to the 4th Amendment, I have a right to be "secure in [my] person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," which "shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Do you think Apple and Microsoft hand them a bundle of money and say, "Make shit up about our competition, but make it sound sciency, so say you analyzed statistics and stuff!"
That "Manufacturers" section is pretty much a who's who of the Android ecosystem.
How else do you think they get access to a year's worth of call center records and other data from the manufacturers? That's not generally publicly available information...
This report was likely commissioned by multiple clients (manufacturers & mobile operators) who handed over their aggregate call center data to the research firm and said, "Tell us what you see." And what they see is that Android handsets seem to have a higher hardware failure rate.
Sounds like a fair and fairly accurate assessment, then. Honestly, a higher failure rate is to be expected due to the open nature of the system.
It couldn't be someone who has an axe to grind on Android phones, no?
Contrary to troll belief, that is an excellent question; TFA states that the study was done by "WDS" - however, it never specifies what "WDS" stands for.
Slashdot Mirror
Bottom line, if there was any profitability in it, Exxon, shell, BP, Citgo, etc. etc. would have already done it.
Hmm, I wonder what that would be like...
Not sure if mexicans are cool with space travel.
Can't be that much different than sneaking across the border stuffed in the dashboard of an '86 Nova.
could possibly go wrong?
J.P. Morgan could buy out all the patents and squash the project when he realizes there's no where to stick a meter.
Your problem, of course, is that you think logically, and are therefore banned from participating in American politics.
Thanks for playing, and here's a lovely parting gift: 2 locking steel bracelets connected by a short chain!
Congratulations, citizen!
"Obi-Ron [Paul], you're our only hope!"
Who the hell is "Ann" Rand???
Moron.
No other possible outcome...
Doesn't give a shit.
And what is their opinion on Mario wearing a frog suit?
That nobody gives a rat's ass about the French...
"Reverse Engineer is credit to team!"
Well, I tried... convert credits to sandvich, perhaps?
Jokefail.
Here's a bucket of water and a rag; now go wash the sand out of your vagina, anonymous fanboy asshat.
so what is he trying to say ?
That Apple fanboys would sooner go a-grave robbin' to suck Steve off some more, than purchase something that might actually be useful.
At least, that's what it sounds like to me.
Uhhh, no it isn't. You wouldn't consider it a search if they followed you around, would you?
Actually, according to the law of the state in which I reside, it is technically harassment for law enforcement to follow a vehicle for more than a mile without pulling it over.
I'd hate to live where you live, yo.
I'd just smash it up and toss it.
If they send you a bill, send one back charging them more than their bill.
Better idea: Stick it on a local judge's car.
I think a politician would be a better choice. A judge may be outraged, but a politician can also enact new legislation.
True, but a judge can issue an injunction.
Either way seems a safe bet.
I have a right to be "secure in [my] person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
Where is the search or seizure here? They aren't looking into your car, nor are they depriving you of its use.
Recording my movements to use against me in court is very much a search. Installing equipment on my vehicle for the purpose of said recording also constitutes a search.
Of course, so long as "intellectuals" continue to wax philosophic in regards as to what constitutes a search and what does not, the police state will continue to remove our rights until no more exist.
The administration, which is attempting to overturn a lower court ruling that threw out a drug dealer’s conviction over the warrantless use of a tracker, argues that citizens have no expectation of privacy when it comes to their movements in public so officers don’t need to get a warrant to use such devices.
The irony, of course, is how bent out of shape public servants get when you turn the tables and record them.
I'd just smash it up and toss it.
If they send you a bill, send one back charging them more than their bill.
Better idea: Stick it on a local judge's car.
And to think, had the limey fog-breathers thought of this 260 years ago, there would be no United States!
Apparently, oppressive oligarchies are cyclical.
A serious question, one that I hope folks take seriously because I truly cannot answer this:
If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?
I struggle for an answer myself. It feels wrong, but as far as I can tell that isn't a valid legal argument.
Depends on whether you believe the U.S. Constitution is the supreme, un-supercede-able law of the land, or if you're one of those scared-of-your-own-shadow types who thinks that taking away our freedoms for the illusion of security is acceptable.
Obviously, I happen to be of the former mentality, and according to the 4th Amendment, I have a right to be "secure in [my] person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," which "shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
a replacement for the free peanuts i can get behind!
Or rather, in front of.
Do you think Apple and Microsoft hand them a bundle of money and say, "Make shit up about our competition, but make it sound sciency, so say you analyzed statistics and stuff!"
Wouldn't put it past 'em... the Fruit, at least.
http://www.wds.co/about/clients.asp
That "Manufacturers" section is pretty much a who's who of the Android ecosystem.
How else do you think they get access to a year's worth of call center records and other data from the manufacturers? That's not generally publicly available information...
This report was likely commissioned by multiple clients (manufacturers & mobile operators) who handed over their aggregate call center data to the research firm and said, "Tell us what you see." And what they see is that Android handsets seem to have a higher hardware failure rate.
Sounds like a fair and fairly accurate assessment, then. Honestly, a higher failure rate is to be expected due to the open nature of the system.
Thanks for the intel.
Found the WhoIs entry.
Now it's someone else's turn.
A Google search yields no useful result.
Scratch that.
However, a Google search of "Wireless Dat Service" turns up nothing (so far) but reposts of the same article...
It couldn't be someone who has an axe to grind on Android phones, no?
Contrary to troll belief, that is an excellent question; TFA states that the study was done by "WDS" - however, it never specifies what "WDS" stands for.
A Google search yields no useful result.
They don't need to own the companies to do their social engineering work...
They just hire third party companies to go online and astroturf the hell out of anything they get their hands on.
Joseph Goebbels would be so proud.