Why the h*ll wasn't this done around the turn of the century? It's not like the two phone systems have any large incompatibilities or that they're too far from each other to make cooperation possible.
Also, time to shut down services that allow you to spoof phone numbers - and cut off access from countries that don't comply.
Cheaters (see Ashley Madison). People who, if the cheap-ass pay-as-you-go phone gets lost, can't be arsed to report it so they don't care who uses it. Someone who just wants a cheap phone until they can replace their regular phone, and then sell it for a few bucks, no hassles.
Somehow I don't think Stevie Wonder has a drivers license. There are plenty of visually handicapped who don't. Same as other handicaps or diseases, like MS or Parkinson's. Just stand behind someone with Parkinson's at an ATM machine - be ready to wait a while for them to punch the right numbers in.
Nope. The document is indeed, as you point out, the data on the phone. They have the evidence. The fact that is concealed is between them and the phone's owner, not some 3rd party - especially since it was the FBI ordering the change of the password on the cloud service that made it impossible to just sync.
Prolonged interaction with people with dementia is VERY stressful. Especially when they get to the point where they "remember" imagined wrongs even when confronted with concrete proof. Always be accompanied by a witness. I know several people who have caused grief to others, including care givers and family, over false accusations.
Or it could just be that there are too many idiots whose brains have ossified to the point that it's not even worth arguing with - and this applies to a much larger age group than just old folks having "senior's moments."
That is probably a good pre-indicator of future dementia.
Too bad that the "documents" you are referring to are not, in any judicial interpretation, evidence. The "due administration of justice" is interfered with when you destroy evidence. The key and source are not evidence. The "administration of justice" doesn't comprise seizing non-evidence.
Seriously? If all new drilling were suspended tomorrow, the current wells (many of them idled because there's TOO MUCH OIL already) won't magically stop existing.
I can't wait for the throngs of homeless in your scenario!
I dunno...Humans have been survivors since their beginnings on this earth.....
I somehow doubt that the masses will either give up and die on the streets or become criminals.
My thoughts are that if you force most people to get off the dole...they will do something to get work and survive.
I can't believe the majority will resort to crime or just give up...that's now how humans work.
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".
-- Marie Antoinette.
She figured poverty wasn't something to lose your head over - the guillotine proved otherwise. Desperate people in desperate times resort to desperate measures. Even the Romans, with their bread and circuses, understood that.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
As I wrote: "Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts" for obstruction and conspiracy. Its about "blocking" the pursuit of "justice" sometimes.
You wrote "most likely". In other words, you are just making a guess with no basis in law. Neither the key nor the source code are evidence. Your supposition is (car analogy time) saying that your car, that had nothing to do with a robbery, shouldn't be destroyed because it was identical to the one the FBI shot full of holes and impounded, and is still in their possession, because they might want to use it to recreate the crime.
I for one welcome commenters who realize that the web is a *subset* of the internet.
Your comment was akin to saying, "I don't like collies - just animals."
No, the comment was the equivalent of saying "I like dogs - except pugs." Shame you can't tell the difference.
You should have the skill to do so, or it will bite you in the ass. The function that was in question is trivial to implement. Very trivial. Even in c.
Why would you worry about a lost chip+pin card, unless you were dumb enough to write your pin on it? Three wrong tries and the card is forever locked out.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
That's a really dumb decision. You should welcome customers with problems with your competitor's products with open arms. They're an easier sell to switch over to your product, no matter what the business, plus extra $$$ never hurts.
Mag swipe readers are being phased out. Credit card companies are shifting liability for fraudulent purchases onto businesses that still rely on mag strips.
Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you.
WARNING - They're not friends - they're KIDS. And they will come into the bedroom at the worst times possible. That's why you need vaseline - put some on the door knob and the kids will go "EWWWW" and leave you alone:-)
I wrote a shell at one point that would recognize different "url-like" strings and hand them off to the underlying os using the appropriate protocol. It was just to see if I could, but I also found that it was one level of abstraction too many. Too many levels of abstraction becomes a distraction. (is there a law for that? If not, I claim dibs):-)
So maybe Apple will decide to contest the concept of being charged and tried for contempt of court by the same judge, since it's obvious that there is no due process - no trial by an independent judge - and demand the judge recuse himself from any such trial, and from the original case as well. The current procedure for dealing with contempt of court is just that - a procedure - and one that runs foul of basic civil rights.
I've wanted to try that a few times, and came close one time when arguing a legal point with a judge - took him 5 minutes to realize he was wrong, but it got quite heated, and that was plan B.
The key is not evidence. They can destroy it as long as they haven't been ordered not to. Also, it is not obstruction of justice, just contempt of court. Move it physically outside the jurisdiction and destroy it, it's simply beyond the court's jurisdiction. As for conspiracy, prove it.
Everything is a url is stupid. What that means is every single reference to a file is going to have to go through the same security checks as any url. Getting a directory listing should be fun times... checking it even more so...
Slashdot Mirror
Why the h*ll wasn't this done around the turn of the century? It's not like the two phone systems have any large incompatibilities or that they're too far from each other to make cooperation possible.
Also, time to shut down services that allow you to spoof phone numbers - and cut off access from countries that don't comply.
Cheaters (see Ashley Madison). People who, if the cheap-ass pay-as-you-go phone gets lost, can't be arsed to report it so they don't care who uses it. Someone who just wants a cheap phone until they can replace their regular phone, and then sell it for a few bucks, no hassles.
Somehow I don't think Stevie Wonder has a drivers license. There are plenty of visually handicapped who don't. Same as other handicaps or diseases, like MS or Parkinson's. Just stand behind someone with Parkinson's at an ATM machine - be ready to wait a while for them to punch the right numbers in.
Nope. The document is indeed, as you point out, the data on the phone. They have the evidence. The fact that is concealed is between them and the phone's owner, not some 3rd party - especially since it was the FBI ordering the change of the password on the cloud service that made it impossible to just sync.
More like smart watches, 3d tvs and vr headsets, do you really, really need those?
Prolonged interaction with people with dementia is VERY stressful. Especially when they get to the point where they "remember" imagined wrongs even when confronted with concrete proof. Always be accompanied by a witness. I know several people who have caused grief to others, including care givers and family, over false accusations.
Or it could just be that there are too many idiots whose brains have ossified to the point that it's not even worth arguing with - and this applies to a much larger age group than just old folks having "senior's moments."
That is probably a good pre-indicator of future dementia.
Too bad that the "documents" you are referring to are not, in any judicial interpretation, evidence. The "due administration of justice" is interfered with when you destroy evidence. The key and source are not evidence. The "administration of justice" doesn't comprise seizing non-evidence.
Seriously? If all new drilling were suspended tomorrow, the current wells (many of them idled because there's TOO MUCH OIL already) won't magically stop existing.
Mind you, you also wrote this
I can't wait for the throngs of homeless in your scenario!
I dunno...Humans have been survivors since their beginnings on this earth.....
I somehow doubt that the masses will either give up and die on the streets or become criminals.
My thoughts are that if you force most people to get off the dole...they will do something to get work and survive.
I can't believe the majority will resort to crime or just give up...that's now how humans work.
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".
-- Marie Antoinette.
She figured poverty wasn't something to lose your head over - the guillotine proved otherwise. Desperate people in desperate times resort to desperate measures. Even the Romans, with their bread and circuses, understood that.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
As I wrote: "Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts" for obstruction and conspiracy. Its about "blocking" the pursuit of "justice" sometimes.
You wrote "most likely". In other words, you are just making a guess with no basis in law. Neither the key nor the source code are evidence. Your supposition is (car analogy time) saying that your car, that had nothing to do with a robbery, shouldn't be destroyed because it was identical to the one the FBI shot full of holes and impounded, and is still in their possession, because they might want to use it to recreate the crime.
I for one welcome commenters who realize that the web is a *subset* of the internet. Your comment was akin to saying, "I don't like collies - just animals."
No, the comment was the equivalent of saying "I like dogs - except pugs." Shame you can't tell the difference.
I for one welcome applications that aren't dependent on the web - just the internet. Get rid of LOTS of crappy javascript libraries :-)
Most of the stuff in kitchen-sink libraries isn't used. It's just cruft waiting around, uselessly taking up space.
You should have the skill to do so, or it will bite you in the ass. The function that was in question is trivial to implement. Very trivial. Even in c.
Why would you worry about a lost chip+pin card, unless you were dumb enough to write your pin on it? Three wrong tries and the card is forever locked out.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
Roll your own libraries. No outside dependencies, and you'll probably leave out a lot of the cruft that is there "because."
That's a really dumb decision. You should welcome customers with problems with your competitor's products with open arms. They're an easier sell to switch over to your product, no matter what the business, plus extra $$$ never hurts.
Mag swipe readers are being phased out. Credit card companies are shifting liability for fraudulent purchases onto businesses that still rely on mag strips.
too many failed attempts and you'll never open it again
If you don't want to use it, the FBI will be quite happy to help others help themselves to your Apple Pay account.
Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you.
WARNING - They're not friends - they're KIDS. And they will come into the bedroom at the worst times possible. That's why you need vaseline - put some on the door knob and the kids will go "EWWWW" and leave you alone :-)
I wrote a shell at one point that would recognize different "url-like" strings and hand them off to the underlying os using the appropriate protocol. It was just to see if I could, but I also found that it was one level of abstraction too many. Too many levels of abstraction becomes a distraction. (is there a law for that? If not, I claim dibs) :-)
So maybe Apple will decide to contest the concept of being charged and tried for contempt of court by the same judge, since it's obvious that there is no due process - no trial by an independent judge - and demand the judge recuse himself from any such trial, and from the original case as well. The current procedure for dealing with contempt of court is just that - a procedure - and one that runs foul of basic civil rights.
I've wanted to try that a few times, and came close one time when arguing a legal point with a judge - took him 5 minutes to realize he was wrong, but it got quite heated, and that was plan B.
The key is not evidence. They can destroy it as long as they haven't been ordered not to. Also, it is not obstruction of justice, just contempt of court. Move it physically outside the jurisdiction and destroy it, it's simply beyond the court's jurisdiction. As for conspiracy, prove it.
Everything is a url is stupid. What that means is every single reference to a file is going to have to go through the same security checks as any url. Getting a directory listing should be fun times ... checking it even more so ...