Ah, my bad. You meant "companies should have privacy policies that prevent the company from releasing the data without a warrant". Not quite how I read what you said. Carry on:)
Yep, and the cellular carrier (unless your business arrangement says otherwise) is allowed to divulge that information to a court on request - aka a court order. (Even if your arrangement does say otherwise, it seems unlikely a court would enforce a provision that requires the company to refuse court orders that are not warrants...)
The court never needs a warrant to _ask_ for information. They need a warrant to have the request backed by force. If the cellphone company chooses to comply with the court order, no warrant is needed. If they choose not to comply, then a warrant may get issued and the data will be taken forcibly.
When read as "1% is not important", you are right. But when read as "spending time optimizing small stuff will get you less benefit than spending the same time optimizing big stuff", I have to disagree with you.
That would help. It would take quite some time to make a big difference in some areas, but it would at least result in the potential for change. However, during that time, the incumbent can still screw over the customer base with impunity.
Hmmm. I wonder if there's an app or a mod (seems like greasemonkey could probably do it if I knew how) to remove the sponsored stuff from google searches:)
It's not that a phone that's offline is still vulnerable to wifi; it's that once this attack (which is carefully designed to get this result) hits you can't get enough control to go offline. The summary's got an inaccurate paraphrase, but TFA's phrasing isn't immediately clear. The researcher's blog has a better description.
yeah, that's been the case for a long time. If you have a dog right handy you can run it around the car. This is clarifying what qualifies as "right handy".
Slashdot Mirror
Eh. I don't have a problem with the fall-through. Interleaving the switch cases and the do/while makes me shudder.
Ah, my bad. You meant "companies should have privacy policies that prevent the company from releasing the data without a warrant". Not quite how I read what you said. Carry on :)
From AT&T's page:
Some examples of who we share your Personal Information with:
With other companies and entities, to:
Comply with court orders and other legal process
Some examples of who we share your Personal Information with:
From AT&T's page:
Some examples of who we share your Personal Information with:
With other companies and entities, to:
Comply with court orders and other legal process
Yep, and the cellular carrier (unless your business arrangement says otherwise) is allowed to divulge that information to a court on request - aka a court order. (Even if your arrangement does say otherwise, it seems unlikely a court would enforce a provision that requires the company to refuse court orders that are not warrants...)
The court never needs a warrant to _ask_ for information. They need a warrant to have the request backed by force. If the cellphone company chooses to comply with the court order, no warrant is needed. If they choose not to comply, then a warrant may get issued and the data will be taken forcibly.
shut down, go to bathroom, come back. If you're using this, you have decided that unattended uptime is not acceptable.
When read as "1% is not important", you are right. But when read as "spending time optimizing small stuff will get you less benefit than spending the same time optimizing big stuff", I have to disagree with you.
I'm not familiar with wireless, outside of wifi. How much spectrum is there and how fast will it get saturated in an apartment complex?
Nope. Sulu did all the work, after all (of course, he still made it look easy :)
O19.0Neon
But no way in hell I'd have an automatic pattern generator rigged to try that.
because they didn't want to bundle a password manager when you can add one as a plugin?
It's from a while ago but here's the first one I found (less than 5 seconds, too): bounty hunters kill couple in case of mistaken identity
That was his point; that title 2 is being opposed because it makes it harder to control use of the medium.
That would help. It would take quite some time to make a big difference in some areas, but it would at least result in the potential for change. However, during that time, the incumbent can still screw over the customer base with impunity.
Hmmm. I wonder if there's an app or a mod (seems like greasemonkey could probably do it if I knew how) to remove the sponsored stuff from google searches :)
Rephrased a bit, he's fine with being forced to express an opinion as long as "I don't care" is an allowable opinion.
of course. But can they spare it to hire lobbyists after buying all the necessities and "necessities" of life?
It's not that a phone that's offline is still vulnerable to wifi; it's that once this attack (which is carefully designed to get this result) hits you can't get enough control to go offline. The summary's got an inaccurate paraphrase, but TFA's phrasing isn't immediately clear. The researcher's blog has a better description.
They do get a say. They just don't have attending students. I don't either. Can I get my money back?
but the USB 2.0 port should work great, no?
It would be more accurate to say "12th study confirms no link between MMR vaccine and autism", with a subtitle of "versus no studies showing a link"
Next problem (maybe the first problem) is, what is the text of an amendment that would actually fix the problem?
yeah, that's been the case for a long time. If you have a dog right handy you can run it around the car. This is clarifying what qualifies as "right handy".
facebook maybe. If google goes ipv6 nobody will be able to find instructions...