It's the way the source press release was worded. From the press release of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP, who commenced the class action, "Only after employees accepted employment with the business partner, BlackBerry informed the employees that they had resigned their employment. Blackberry provided resignation letters for the employees to sign and dictated their last date of employment."
What we really need are for the tech companies to band together like the libraries did, and protect the confidentiality of their clients. Demand warrants, and stop allowing easy access to our records. If the books I borrow are privileged information that requires a lawful warrant or subpoena (by law in most states), then so are the websites I visit, and the email I send and receive.
Sure they have - they've stepped up the forced upgrade program, regardless of the bad press. It's almost like there's a gun to an executive's head, pressuring for upgrades to 10 at all costs.
That happened after 3rd party repairs and/or modifications though. It was more like an xbox detecting that the dvd drive had been swapped, and triggering the DRM. This case though, is more like when Sony removed the Linux capability from the Playstation 3. Hell, think of the outrage that would take place if a car manufacturer decided they were no longer going to repair a line of vehicles sold, and were even going around to the owners homes to inject a solution to cause the engines to seize.
Hello, Maryland AG's Mother, and thank you for appearing in front of us today as an expert Mother. Your son has argued that everyone knows cell phones create, store, and broadcast location data all the time so no warrant is needed for tracking them. Did you know that your phone is reporting your location to the phone company 24 hours a day? Did you know your son wants to know where you go every hour of the day, and believes he has the right to do so without a warrant?
How is this reconciled with automakers not being allowed to pursue copyright claims against makers/sellers/distributors of replicas and kit-cars? I thought previous court cases determined that vehicles could not be copyrighted, and automakers only enjoyed trademark protection against the specific logos and trademarks placed on the vehicles?
Name one. I've searched CyanogenMod's supported devices page, and the earliest CM12 compatible device is from early 2012. Everything else is CM11 or earlier. MIUI v7 is similarly limited to devices from early 2012, AOKP hasn't yet released a stable Lollipop build for any device, and Paranoid only goes as far back as late 2012 / early 2013.
Near as I can tell, no Lollipop Rom supports anything from before 2012, mostly because the device manufacturers are still using proprietary blobs that require specific versions of the linux kernel to compile against, limiting how much support can actually be provided by newer versions of Android. There's also the fact of CPU/GPU/RAM limitations to take into account on older devices, and whether the experience of a Lollipop build for an older device becomes so terrible that it causes harm to the brand as a whole. Apple ran into that during their previous OS update to iOS 8, with the oldest compatible devices becoming noticeably slower after the upgrade.
Actually, the law is almost always on the storage facility's side. In general, the facility is not responsible for your items, assuming reasonable precautions are taken. You should carry your own insurance (through the facility or outside insurance), because the facility's own insurance may only be liable for the buildings themselves.
As has been pointed out to me though, there apparently was little to no security for the Ashley-Madison breach, which is much like a storage facility with no fence, no secured access, and no provision for you to even attach your own lock to the door of your unit. I don't think any judge would absolve such a facility of responsibility for such a lack of security like they would for one that took reasonable precautions against theft.
So, if this wasn't a theft of PII by network hack, but instead a physical break-in/raid resulting in the loss of all paper files, should all the executives still be on the hook? Say, if Ashley-Madison operated before the internet age, where customers visited an actual brick and mortor location and filled out paper forms, rather than electronic. Should a physical store be required to be Fort Knox before executives can be considered blameless for a breach?
You shouldn't ever need the secret ones. Software taking advantage of the secret internal API's are the whole reason why upgrading Windows can and does break software. Heck, it's the reason so many malware programs cause actual bluescreens after an update. I sometimes wish they had never been accessible to 3rd parties.
Really? So, there's no expectation of privacy when wearing a skirt since it's completely open to any ground level upward facing camera? I don't see how that's different from a downward facing camera in the sky.
Why exactly is the entertainment system of a vehicle, devoloped by design to display "unknown" content, tied into critical systems? First airplanes and now cars. What the actual fuck are these people thinking?
Birth Certificates can be super easy to get. I didn't even need photo id to get a certified copy of mine, just my SS, the location of birth, and parents names / mother's maiden name. Ordered over the internet to my house, no phone calls, no in person visits. Stupid easy to get.
I've noticed the same thing when watching Youtube 4k videos on my phone - hurrah for high dpi screens. You'd think with a physically small screen the difference wouldn't be that noticeable, but it really is. The only downside I see is blowing through my monthly data cap in a single afternoon:P
That $600 a month also comes with business level SLA's and penalties for outages that you don't get with a consumer level package so it's not highway robbery. It's merely not an appropriate package for home internet or single user business use.
It doesn't matter if it's a government domain or not. Any communications with an official regarding their official capacity is subject to the law, whether sent to his personal address or government address.
Except anything relating to his governorship falls under the law, regardless if the communication went to his private, corporate, or government address. You can't just sidestep public records laws by "privatizing" your communications. Any communication with a government official as that government official is public record.
No, you bought a non-transferable license. If you bought a physical copy, then you bought a real tangible and transferable asset, subject to first sale. An electronic copy is legally different in many jurisdictions. Until everyone, everywhere, has law or court case precedence guaranteeing the first sale right to electronic purchases we will see many more of these actions by companies that want their cut of all sales, from the first and all proceeding secondary sales.
The jurisdiction that apparently permits him to walk back into a store after 15 days and remove a 2nd copy from the shelf without paying a second time?
Microsoft does NOT control their own update process for Windows phone. Updates are delayed by each carrier for "testing" before being released. You can visit Windows Phone Availability to see which carriers phones have been updated to the latest version, Denim. As it stands, only 1 carrier has issued the Denim update, and only to 2 phones. If you don't have one of those 2 phones from that specific carrier in the US, you can only obtain the Denim update by signing up as a developer. Of course, by doing so, you acknowledge that your carrier no longer has to support your phone since you are no longer running carrier approved firmware.
Google didn't have the market clout that Apple did to force the carriers into the agreement. Remember, Apple had to "shop around" for a carrier that would agree to the financial and control terms for the iPhone. Verizon famously turned down the offer for exclusivity, AT&T did not. At the time, with the popularity of the iPod, one would think that an iPod phone would print it's own money and that all the carrier's would be scrambling to jump to Apple's whim. As we saw though, only AT&T saw the potential, and everyone else was left playing catch-up.
Microsoft does NOT control their own update process for Windows phone. Updates are delayed by each carrier for "testing" before being released. You can visit Windows Phone Availability to see which carriers phones have been updated to the latest version, Denim. As it stands, only 1 carrier has issued the Denim update, and only to 2 phones. If you don't have one of those 2 phones from that specific carrier in the US, you can only obtain the Denim update by signing up as a developer. Of course, by doing so, you acknowledge that your carrier no longer has to support your phone since you are no longer running carrier approved firmware.
No, the carriers made up this system, and it existed long before Android entered the market. Symbian OS, Windows Phone, and Android are all affected. Apple managed to get AT&T to agree to allow Apple to control when and how updates to the iPhone are provided as part of the initial AT&T exclusive partnership agreement for the original iPhone. Every carrier since AT&T has had to agree to the same provision regarding Apple's control, or they don't get the iPhone. I'm not aware of ANY other phone manufacturer that has managed that feat before or since, without being forced to sell their phones directly to the public as carrier free/unlocked phones as Nokia did with the n900.
No, the source and comments posted show that the pid change is issued to ALL devices, real and fake. It just happens that the real device ignores the command, and the fakes obey it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the way the source press release was worded. From the press release of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP, who commenced the class action, "Only after employees accepted employment with the business partner, BlackBerry informed the employees that they had resigned their employment. Blackberry provided resignation letters for the employees to sign and dictated their last date of employment."
What we really need are for the tech companies to band together like the libraries did, and protect the confidentiality of their clients. Demand warrants, and stop allowing easy access to our records. If the books I borrow are privileged information that requires a lawful warrant or subpoena (by law in most states), then so are the websites I visit, and the email I send and receive.
Sure they have - they've stepped up the forced upgrade program, regardless of the bad press. It's almost like there's a gun to an executive's head, pressuring for upgrades to 10 at all costs.
That happened after 3rd party repairs and/or modifications though. It was more like an xbox detecting that the dvd drive had been swapped, and triggering the DRM. This case though, is more like when Sony removed the Linux capability from the Playstation 3. Hell, think of the outrage that would take place if a car manufacturer decided they were no longer going to repair a line of vehicles sold, and were even going around to the owners homes to inject a solution to cause the engines to seize.
The phone is only as secure as your pass-phrase. A 4 digit pass-phrase consisting of 0-9 is in no way secure.
Hello, Maryland AG's Mother, and thank you for appearing in front of us today as an expert Mother. Your son has argued that everyone knows cell phones create, store, and broadcast location data all the time so no warrant is needed for tracking them. Did you know that your phone is reporting your location to the phone company 24 hours a day? Did you know your son wants to know where you go every hour of the day, and believes he has the right to do so without a warrant?
How is this reconciled with automakers not being allowed to pursue copyright claims against makers/sellers/distributors of replicas and kit-cars? I thought previous court cases determined that vehicles could not be copyrighted, and automakers only enjoyed trademark protection against the specific logos and trademarks placed on the vehicles?
Name one. I've searched CyanogenMod's supported devices page, and the earliest CM12 compatible device is from early 2012. Everything else is CM11 or earlier. MIUI v7 is similarly limited to devices from early 2012, AOKP hasn't yet released a stable Lollipop build for any device, and Paranoid only goes as far back as late 2012 / early 2013.
Near as I can tell, no Lollipop Rom supports anything from before 2012, mostly because the device manufacturers are still using proprietary blobs that require specific versions of the linux kernel to compile against, limiting how much support can actually be provided by newer versions of Android. There's also the fact of CPU/GPU/RAM limitations to take into account on older devices, and whether the experience of a Lollipop build for an older device becomes so terrible that it causes harm to the brand as a whole. Apple ran into that during their previous OS update to iOS 8, with the oldest compatible devices becoming noticeably slower after the upgrade.
Actually, the law is almost always on the storage facility's side. In general, the facility is not responsible for your items, assuming reasonable precautions are taken. You should carry your own insurance (through the facility or outside insurance), because the facility's own insurance may only be liable for the buildings themselves.
As has been pointed out to me though, there apparently was little to no security for the Ashley-Madison breach, which is much like a storage facility with no fence, no secured access, and no provision for you to even attach your own lock to the door of your unit. I don't think any judge would absolve such a facility of responsibility for such a lack of security like they would for one that took reasonable precautions against theft.
So, if this wasn't a theft of PII by network hack, but instead a physical break-in/raid resulting in the loss of all paper files, should all the executives still be on the hook? Say, if Ashley-Madison operated before the internet age, where customers visited an actual brick and mortor location and filled out paper forms, rather than electronic. Should a physical store be required to be Fort Knox before executives can be considered blameless for a breach?
You shouldn't ever need the secret ones. Software taking advantage of the secret internal API's are the whole reason why upgrading Windows can and does break software. Heck, it's the reason so many malware programs cause actual bluescreens after an update. I sometimes wish they had never been accessible to 3rd parties.
Really? So, there's no expectation of privacy when wearing a skirt since it's completely open to any ground level upward facing camera? I don't see how that's different from a downward facing camera in the sky.
Why exactly is the entertainment system of a vehicle, devoloped by design to display "unknown" content, tied into critical systems? First airplanes and now cars. What the actual fuck are these people thinking?
Birth Certificates can be super easy to get. I didn't even need photo id to get a certified copy of mine, just my SS, the location of birth, and parents names / mother's maiden name. Ordered over the internet to my house, no phone calls, no in person visits. Stupid easy to get.
I've noticed the same thing when watching Youtube 4k videos on my phone - hurrah for high dpi screens. You'd think with a physically small screen the difference wouldn't be that noticeable, but it really is. The only downside I see is blowing through my monthly data cap in a single afternoon :P
That $600 a month also comes with business level SLA's and penalties for outages that you don't get with a consumer level package so it's not highway robbery. It's merely not an appropriate package for home internet or single user business use.
It doesn't matter if it's a government domain or not. Any communications with an official regarding their official capacity is subject to the law, whether sent to his personal address or government address.
Except anything relating to his governorship falls under the law, regardless if the communication went to his private, corporate, or government address. You can't just sidestep public records laws by "privatizing" your communications. Any communication with a government official as that government official is public record.
No, you bought a non-transferable license. If you bought a physical copy, then you bought a real tangible and transferable asset, subject to first sale. An electronic copy is legally different in many jurisdictions. Until everyone, everywhere, has law or court case precedence guaranteeing the first sale right to electronic purchases we will see many more of these actions by companies that want their cut of all sales, from the first and all proceeding secondary sales.
The jurisdiction that apparently permits him to walk back into a store after 15 days and remove a 2nd copy from the shelf without paying a second time?
Microsoft does NOT control their own update process for Windows phone. Updates are delayed by each carrier for "testing" before being released. You can visit Windows Phone Availability to see which carriers phones have been updated to the latest version, Denim. As it stands, only 1 carrier has issued the Denim update, and only to 2 phones. If you don't have one of those 2 phones from that specific carrier in the US, you can only obtain the Denim update by signing up as a developer. Of course, by doing so, you acknowledge that your carrier no longer has to support your phone since you are no longer running carrier approved firmware.
Google didn't have the market clout that Apple did to force the carriers into the agreement. Remember, Apple had to "shop around" for a carrier that would agree to the financial and control terms for the iPhone. Verizon famously turned down the offer for exclusivity, AT&T did not. At the time, with the popularity of the iPod, one would think that an iPod phone would print it's own money and that all the carrier's would be scrambling to jump to Apple's whim. As we saw though, only AT&T saw the potential, and everyone else was left playing catch-up.
Microsoft does NOT control their own update process for Windows phone. Updates are delayed by each carrier for "testing" before being released. You can visit Windows Phone Availability to see which carriers phones have been updated to the latest version, Denim. As it stands, only 1 carrier has issued the Denim update, and only to 2 phones. If you don't have one of those 2 phones from that specific carrier in the US, you can only obtain the Denim update by signing up as a developer. Of course, by doing so, you acknowledge that your carrier no longer has to support your phone since you are no longer running carrier approved firmware.
No, the carriers made up this system, and it existed long before Android entered the market. Symbian OS, Windows Phone, and Android are all affected. Apple managed to get AT&T to agree to allow Apple to control when and how updates to the iPhone are provided as part of the initial AT&T exclusive partnership agreement for the original iPhone. Every carrier since AT&T has had to agree to the same provision regarding Apple's control, or they don't get the iPhone. I'm not aware of ANY other phone manufacturer that has managed that feat before or since, without being forced to sell their phones directly to the public as carrier free/unlocked phones as Nokia did with the n900.
No, the source and comments posted show that the pid change is issued to ALL devices, real and fake. It just happens that the real device ignores the command, and the fakes obey it.