I don't know why you "blame" brits and the Vatican.
The now separated states declared independence from "Yugoslavia". And the "Great Serbien Reich" had nothing better to do than to attack the states and draw them _all_ or in other words, each of them, into a full scale war with atrocities over atrocities.
The only ones who where lucky were the Slovenians who basically did first what the Serbs did in the other countries: they put all Serbian troops in mainly Slovenian barracks into prison, surrounded the mainly Serbien barracks and gave an ultimatum: "you leave, your weapons stay, or we kill you". Originally most barracks had Serbian and Slovenian troops mixed as they both belonged to the same "nation"/"army". But during the forming of the individual (first federal and later independent) states the Serbs who were in charge of the army, tried to set up barracks with mainly Serbian forces.
The other states where not that smart, because there the Serbs did the same tactics as the Slovenians above, but did not give an ultimatum, they just started the killing everywhere.
And then the slaughtering of ethnic groups amoung themselves started, especially in Bosnia.
Ofc. we say "soccer fields", and some people might mistranslate into english and say "football fields", however it is only used in cases where laymen are addressed, e.g. "the flight deck of a carrier has the size of a soccer field" (which is wrong, but never mind;D )
Well, I try to summarize, your last posts and answer.
The laws for telecommunication regulate devices that use the radio spectrum. The laws regarding "spying" on someone are a subset or associated law as we have something like "secrecy of letters", no eavesdropping on privacy without warrant, no eavesdropping at all by non law enforcement.
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that the criteria are unclear. The device is used for eavesdropping, no other explanation needed. The owner can not disable it, and likely does not know about that option.
I was trying to distinguish civil law regimes from common law regimes. Under common law, higher courts make precedent: They explain general rules that lower courts are bound to follow, and how those general rules apply to particular cases. A lower court must follow precedent unless it can distinguish the relevant fact pattern in a new case from the rules laid out by precedent. This tends to make decisions of law a little more predictable. That is only your perception. In real life you still need an expert to ask and to search for cases if you want a good opinion about a certain "thing". You never know if the next court will decide completely different.
We prefer law. As then it is simply written in the law what is "right or wrong", nearly 100% predictable.
However in both cases, your laws and mine: the courts and the law is close to irrelevant as the "ruling" is done by "guidelines and rules" or "regulations" that are not law and can be changed more or less arbitrarily. You can only after you had a hit on the head go to court and claim clarification. Exactly the same in your common law and our civil law system.
Well, you said that the radio license is invalidated based on the behavior of the software on the device, and in particular whether bugs can allow an attacker to record audio and transmit it over the radio. If the device was unable to transfer voice via radio, it would not need a radio license.
VOIP apps are another example of third-party software running on a device that records audio and transmits it over the radio; I No they are not. Sorry to ask again: why are you nitpicking? Why can't you grasp the simplest concepts? VOIP is software!!! Using an established system, what ever it is (computer, Phone) to transport data that happens to be voice. It uses a device that already has "radio authority clearance", a device where everyone KNOWS it can record and transmit and replay: voice. Why does the device have a clearance? Because you can not change frequencies outside of the parameters that device gives you. In other words: a VOIP software can not use your laptops WiFi CARD to interfere with air traffic control, or radio over the local FM station. And: both sides of the end of communication AGREE on the communication.
In the Doll problem above: no one AGREED in using the Doll to be listend on. No one asked for a license to have the Doll as a communication device and "officially" put the option into the "VOIP" bluetooth software. The bluetooth software is not "VOIP" it is a HACK!
I am trying to understand how the line is supposed to be drawn, and why the law is consistently described as a "hidden surveillance device" law rather than a voice radio licensing law or software correctness law, even though you say (plausibly) that the radio license and software correctness are critical parts of the decision -- which also suggests to me that the device looking like a doll, rather than a computer, is largely irrelevant to the BNetzA's decision. The fact that it looks like a doll is indeed irrelevant. It could be a IoT controlled light...
Wich part(s) of the regulations where the BNetzA's is responsible to look over, the Doll violated I don't know exactly. For that you need to read the law and the regulations and g
I learned in school, 40 years ago, a continent is a big plate floating on the earth magma. That is actually a pretty strict definition. Plates are called "continental shelf", mere islands like Hawaii or Japan are not on a continental shelf.
No idea why the english/american wikipedia article disagrees, I guess because it is written by hobbyists?
Now it seems some scientists argue that NZ has its own shelf... if that it is the case: it is a continent.
Juist because it is not clear to you what is allowed or not does not make it unclear for the people making the decisions. This is like so much under civil law: An arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision that does not provide any real insight into how the next decision about a similar example should be made. And how is case law or if you aim more for criminal law different?
Why you hint VOIP Apps could or should fall under the "not allowed" category is beyond me. Especially as the rules are made for devices, not for Apps.
Are laptops with microphones allowed to use WiFi or not? As soon as you find one that can be remotely triggered to activate the microphone and convinced to sent the voice to you, I would assume yes. (And yes I know about laptops where bugs like this exist and that some experts claim every laptop/computer with camera can be easily hacked to do that.)
The problem with the Doll is probably not that it offers the ability per se, but that it is hackable and furthermore that it was probably disguised as an A) and now was found to be a B)
I mean a Doll that clearly claims to be baby phone via the mobile App, would probably have no issues at all: provided it follows simple security standards e.g.
This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that, The argument in the article is: the doll works like that. It gets activated by someone else and then sends the audio that it captures to that one else.
phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can. No it can't. No idea what is so difficult to grasp. My phone can not use BT to activate the microphone on your phone and convince it to sent all audio it picks up to my phone via BT. For that to happen you would need to have an malicious App on your phone and BT activate, and I need to be the one knowing about it and how to exploit it. And you can't do the same trick with my phone neither, I have no such App, and BT is deactivated...
Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? It is most likely not approved because the "voice transition" feature to unknown malicious partners was not "known" and hence the vendor/manufactor did not even ask for a license. Or, it is approved, but then again the same argument holds: it was unknown at time of approval that it easy can be convinced to transfer voice to devices that are not paired upfront... or whatever.
and in particular that it is "NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE" is silly. Talking is one form of communication. Well, with nitpicking you don't win arguments, you only make you either look silly (very silly) or make you enemies. My elaboration was about "communication via radio waves between two devices" That is actually pretty clear. That the Doll talks to children and "understands" simple phrases and hence is "communicating" with the child has obviously nothing to do with radio waves, telecommunication etc.
You still have not explained why the doll is considered a hidden surveillance device, but a phone in your pocket or a smart TV is not. And why should I explain that? I explained very clearly the laws divide devices in group A) and group B). I don't care which device is in which group.
A phone is a phone is a phone. Plain and simple. It is not looked at and some one asks: uh, can that be used as a hidden spy device? The law simply defines: the phone is ok.
Facepalm. Why are you nitpicking over something stupid like this?
Car analogy Car with a driver with a proper license and insurance: ok. Self driving car: not ok
Uber analogy Driver with a commercial person transport permit: ok Driver without such a permit: not ok
Rifles analogy Rifle with only limited automatic fire: ok Rifle with unlimited automatic fire: not ok
Your question is simply silly.
As far as I have seen, this doll only transmits audio to an attacker if the attacker exploits a bug in the Bluetooth interface to run malicious software on the doll. No, he is running the standard software on the Doll... The doll is attackable, hence its license, if it ever had any, is void as the BNetzA argued in their press notice. The same would happen with your phone or smartTV... a no brainer. So why do you raise them as example?
Any device with a microphone and a radio can have the same kind of behavior due to software bugs. Of course it can. Facepalm. And when it happens AND GETS DISCOVERED the BNetzA will place such a device from category A) into category B)
As soon as the bugs are fixed the device can be put back into the other category.
What are you arguing about? Having laws and arbitrarily ignoring them just: because...????????? I mean you are asking the people working at the BNetzA to neglect their duty. They can be sued for that. Why not let them do their duty?
You are unfortunately mistaken. I understand thermodynamics very well.
So the only two rules/laws that you could remotely abuse and declare universal are: a) entropy increases over time b) the energy of a closed system is constant
Both laws are not suited to describe anything of relevance in a pumped storage plant. So if someone claims, as my parent: "Laws of thermodynamics dictate that efficiency of a pumped storage can never exceed X%" then he is wrong. The next best sentence than usually is: friction. And: friction is not part of the realm of thermodynamics, it belongs to mechanics. Just for your interest. b) would not apply because the system is not closed, not even the combined energy of two pools that never get refilled by rain etc. describe a "constant energy" (or even closed) system. a) true, but not relevant as translated into this problem it only would mean: wait till the end of the universe and all water will be in the lower basin. In other words: the so universal everywhere valid law: is pointless in this case. Hence: it is obviously not as universal as people like you claim. Wow, that was so easy again.
I already gave you the layman's summary about TLOTD, and more no one who is not working in the topic needs ever in his life: "as soon as a form of energy is converted into heat, it is extremely difficult/impossible to convert it back into another energy form." And: that has nothing to do with the theoretical or practical limits of thousands of topics in engineering and or physics. E.g. "photo electric effect", or electric engine, or charging a capacitor or transmitting electric power over a cable... or for that matter: sending a probe to Jupiter.
The book seems interesting, though. Perhaps I buy it anyway.
I did not say or meant to say that the law makes. I tried to explain what the law is.
The law divides devices that use radio waves for transmission of voice into two big groups: A) allowed, partly with restrictions, like requiring a license e.g. for VHF radios on boats B) not allowed
As the law right now is, the interpretation of "Die Bundesnetzargentur" is: such devices fall into category B. The mentioned agency is the agency that grants licenses for A) if the person passes the tests (in case a license is needed, as for naval short range radio certificate (SRC) ). It is somewhat equivalent to the US FCC and NCTA.
To get the parliament to change the law for such a trivial case, especially when every member will be aware about the bugs that allow the eavesdropping: is basically zero.
you are either the stupids nitpicker I have ever heard of or simply don't want to grasp it. This doll is no more capable of picking up my phone's microphone input than your phone is Facepalm, no one said this. However my phone is able to pick up what you are talking if the Doll sends it to my phone... and that was the point.
What you say about our phones is irrelevant anyway, but I give you a hint: a phone is a device that is PURPOSELY designed to allow wire less COMMUNICATION via radio waves. It has a FCC number e.g. and gets in EVERY COUNTRY where it is sold an APROVEL, or can't be sold.
That doll is SUPPOSED to be a DOLL and NOTHING MORE. The Bluetooth chip involved might require an FCC number, too. No idea. The doll is NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE. Correct?
However the doll can be ABUSED as a COMMUNICATION DEVICE. That is illegal on several ends first the owners don't know it, secondly it has not the required LICENCE as a COMMUNICATION DEVICE.
To make it half way legal and your point halfway correct, the Doll needs at least a license/ist own FCC number to be legaly used in "consented communications". Every BABY PHONE has such a license. Why not the Doll???
And then finally, why you don't want to grasp the fact about the secret spying, is beyond me. It is ILLEGAL to OWN devices that have the sole PURPOSE to be used for EVESDROPPING for everyone except LAW ENFORCEMENT (under order of a judge!)
This all has nothing to do with the question if the Doll had a build in mobile phone, uses Bluetooth, uses Wifi or is an UHF radio. The simple fact that it is transmitting voice is the start of the legal problem chain.
And instead of arguing wether the german agencay that pointed out that those devices are illegal is right or wrong, I would suggest to check your own laws regarding that first.
E.g. start with: http://www.wikihow.com/Get-an-... Wow, you need a license to operate a powerfull radio transmitter. In Germany you unfortunatly need basically for EVERY apparatus that does transmissions a license. Either the one producing the device. or the owner, or both.
I guess as soon as the software bugs are weeded out the doll simply counts as sophisticated baby phone, and all is fine. So what is your proble?
Sorry for the random capitalization of singel words, but this is IE under Win 10, it is autocorrecting bullshit and I can not see all mistakes (because the whole text is red)
if you think I don't write coherent, then let me ask 2 question:
a) did you even read the summary? b) did you read the article?
My phone can not be used as mobile radio to pick up your phones microphone input and transfer that microfone input as "wireless signals" that happen to be BT and then play them back as audio on my phone.
If I gift you such a doll, and you think "what a silly gift" and put it on your desk: I can spy on you. Such spying and using such devices for spying is illegal. It is exactly the same thing as if I hand you nice looking stone with a "bug" inside. That it uses Bluetooth in this particular context is irrelevant, every "wireless transfer method" would fal under the same argumentation. Was that now coherent enough?
Sorry, I only try to explain, and really grasp what you want to know. Obviously you have done neither a) nor b) above and just sidejumped into the discussion.
I did not check the law, as there was no real case in court. It was only a "recommendation" by the agency that gives licenses to radio operators and telecommunications etc.
Look at it from this point of view: it is illegal to place a "bug" into your rooms for private persons, regardless if relatives etc. And this doll comes Close to a bug.
Ofc, there are different calling conventions. Usually C pushes arguments from left to right onto the stack and the caller cleans up the stack (because of variable argument lists), in Pascal arguments get pushed from right to left and the called procedure/fuction cleans up the stack.
Interfacing with C you usually do via so called 'units'. Units have an interface section and an implementation section. In the interface section you define functions/procedures and call also define if they are written in a different language (Assembly, C, Fortran), unfortunately there is no standard how to do that exactly. (Implementation section would be empty and you have to link with the relevant C library, ofc.)
Most C compilers also used to support 'extern PASCAL' or 'extern FORTRAN' keywords/declarations. But again I think there is no standard for that.
How I understand it, every stranger can connect to the Doll. And as I understand it: it is a bug that the device can be activated without activating the 'recording light'. I doubt parents know that.
Scrum 'by the book' suggests 6 week long sprints. Most teams do 2 or 3 weeks. One week makes only in the rarest cases sense.
In a Scrum project you test inside of the sprint. But we don't have alpha and beta testing. While a sprint result should be shipable, it is not necessarily shipped. E.g. a big online game with half yearly updates might still be developped with a few sprints and then testd and bug fixed.
Most projects I was involved in are done with Scrum. We allways had a completely tested Sprint result, each sprint. Usually the result was accepted in the sprint review, due to a manual demonstration. Often there where testers who tested after the feature was done: during the sprint.
A sprint can not be declared finished unless, a feature is DONE. How you define done is up to the team and the organization.
Some might define done without thouroughful testing...
they don't plan and test their work, All agile methods emphasize testing. All emphasize to have well educated people, which means they have a plan in thier mind and don't need to sketch plans on the board first. So, you probably never have worked in an agile team... Facepalm
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision. Frankly, not understanding how "the law" works is a pretty bonehead attitude.
The law is clear. What do you expect the judge to do? Say: "well, lets make an exception, because it is just a doll!"?
It does not change the fact that the doll obviously can be used by third parties to hack into and listen to conversations in the house of the doll owner.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why you "blame" brits and the Vatican.
The now separated states declared independence from "Yugoslavia". And the "Great Serbien Reich" had nothing better to do than to attack the states and draw them _all_ or in other words, each of them, into a full scale war with atrocities over atrocities.
The only ones who where lucky were the Slovenians who basically did first what the Serbs did in the other countries: they put all Serbian troops in mainly Slovenian barracks into prison, surrounded the mainly Serbien barracks and gave an ultimatum: "you leave, your weapons stay, or we kill you". Originally most barracks had Serbian and Slovenian troops mixed as they both belonged to the same "nation"/"army". But during the forming of the individual (first federal and later independent) states the Serbs who were in charge of the army, tried to set up barracks with mainly Serbian forces.
Only a few mostly Serbian barracks started fights, the war was over in 10 days, see wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The other states where not that smart, because there the Serbs did the same tactics as the Slovenians above, but did not give an ultimatum, they just started the killing everywhere.
And then the slaughtering of ethnic groups amoung themselves started, especially in Bosnia.
Ofc. we say "soccer fields", and some people might mistranslate into english and say "football fields", however it is only used in cases where laymen are addressed, e.g. "the flight deck of a carrier has the size of a soccer field" (which is wrong, but never mind ;D )
Well,
I try to summarize, your last posts and answer.
The laws for telecommunication regulate devices that use the radio spectrum.
The laws regarding "spying" on someone are a subset or associated law as we have something like "secrecy of letters", no eavesdropping on privacy without warrant, no eavesdropping at all by non law enforcement.
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that the criteria are unclear.
The device is used for eavesdropping, no other explanation needed. The owner can not disable it, and likely does not know about that option.
I was trying to distinguish civil law regimes from common law regimes. Under common law, higher courts make precedent: They explain general rules that lower courts are bound to follow, and how those general rules apply to particular cases. A lower court must follow precedent unless it can distinguish the relevant fact pattern in a new case from the rules laid out by precedent. This tends to make decisions of law a little more predictable.
That is only your perception. In real life you still need an expert to ask and to search for cases if you want a good opinion about a certain "thing". You never know if the next court will decide completely different.
We prefer law. As then it is simply written in the law what is "right or wrong", nearly 100% predictable.
However in both cases, your laws and mine: the courts and the law is close to irrelevant as the "ruling" is done by "guidelines and rules" or "regulations" that are not law and can be changed more or less arbitrarily. You can only after you had a hit on the head go to court and claim clarification. Exactly the same in your common law and our civil law system.
Well, you said that the radio license is invalidated based on the behavior of the software on the device, and in particular whether bugs can allow an attacker to record audio and transmit it over the radio.
If the device was unable to transfer voice via radio, it would not need a radio license.
VOIP apps are another example of third-party software running on a device that records audio and transmits it over the radio; I
No they are not. Sorry to ask again: why are you nitpicking? Why can't you grasp the simplest concepts?
VOIP is software!!! Using an established system, what ever it is (computer, Phone) to transport data that happens to be voice. It uses a device that already has "radio authority clearance", a device where everyone KNOWS it can record and transmit and replay: voice. Why does the device have a clearance? Because you can not change frequencies outside of the parameters that device gives you. In other words: a VOIP software can not use your laptops WiFi CARD to interfere with air traffic control, or radio over the local FM station. And: both sides of the end of communication AGREE on the communication.
In the Doll problem above: no one AGREED in using the Doll to be listend on. No one asked for a license to have the Doll as a communication device and "officially" put the option into the "VOIP" bluetooth software. The bluetooth software is not "VOIP" it is a HACK!
I am trying to understand how the line is supposed to be drawn, and why the law is consistently described as a "hidden surveillance device" law rather than a voice radio licensing law or software correctness law, even though you say (plausibly) that the radio license and software correctness are critical parts of the decision -- which also suggests to me that the device looking like a doll, rather than a computer, is largely irrelevant to the BNetzA's decision. ...
The fact that it looks like a doll is indeed irrelevant. It could be a IoT controlled light
Wich part(s) of the regulations where the BNetzA's is responsible to look over, the Doll violated I don't know exactly. For that you need to read the law and the regulations and g
Because those imigrants have a 10 times better education than so many natives.
But that depends on many things like operating system and Compiler, and I would not wonder if you forgot a 'const' to force the crash ;D
I learned in school, 40 years ago, a continent is a big plate floating on the earth magma. That is actually a pretty strict definition. Plates are called "continental shelf", mere islands like Hawaii or Japan are not on a continental shelf.
No idea why the english/american wikipedia article disagrees, I guess because it is written by hobbyists?
Now it seems some scientists argue that NZ has its own shelf ... if that it is the case: it is a continent.
Juist because it is not clear to you what is allowed or not does not make it unclear for the people making the decisions.
This is like so much under civil law: An arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision that does not provide any real insight into how the next decision about a similar example should be made.
And how is case law or if you aim more for criminal law different?
Why you hint VOIP Apps could or should fall under the "not allowed" category is beyond me. Especially as the rules are made for devices, not for Apps.
Are laptops with microphones allowed to use WiFi or not?
As soon as you find one that can be remotely triggered to activate the microphone and convinced to sent the voice to you, I would assume yes. (And yes I know about laptops where bugs like this exist and that some experts claim every laptop/computer with camera can be easily hacked to do that.)
The problem with the Doll is probably not that it offers the ability per se, but that it is hackable and furthermore that it was probably disguised as an A) and now was found to be a B)
I mean a Doll that clearly claims to be baby phone via the mobile App, would probably have no issues at all: provided it follows simple security standards e.g.
But why do you care? I don't ;D pffft.
This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that,
The argument in the article is: the doll works like that. It gets activated by someone else and then sends the audio that it captures to that one else.
phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can. ...
No it can't. No idea what is so difficult to grasp. My phone can not use BT to activate the microphone on your phone and convince it to sent all audio it picks up to my phone via BT. For that to happen you would need to have an malicious App on your phone and BT activate, and I need to be the one knowing about it and how to exploit it. And you can't do the same trick with my phone neither, I have no such App, and BT is deactivated
Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? ... or whatever.
It is most likely not approved because the "voice transition" feature to unknown malicious partners was not "known" and hence the vendor/manufactor did not even ask for a license. Or, it is approved, but then again the same argument holds: it was unknown at time of approval that it easy can be convinced to transfer voice to devices that are not paired upfront
and in particular that it is "NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE" is silly. Talking is one form of communication.
Well, with nitpicking you don't win arguments, you only make you either look silly (very silly) or make you enemies.
My elaboration was about "communication via radio waves between two devices" That is actually pretty clear.
That the Doll talks to children and "understands" simple phrases and hence is "communicating" with the child has obviously nothing to do with radio waves, telecommunication etc.
You still have not explained why the doll is considered a hidden surveillance device, but a phone in your pocket or a smart TV is not.
And why should I explain that? I explained very clearly the laws divide devices in group A) and group B). I don't care which device is in which group.
A phone is a phone is a phone. Plain and simple. It is not looked at and some one asks: uh, can that be used as a hidden spy device? The law simply defines: the phone is ok.
Facepalm. Why are you nitpicking over something stupid like this?
Car analogy
Car with a driver with a proper license and insurance: ok.
Self driving car: not ok
Uber analogy
Driver with a commercial person transport permit: ok
Driver without such a permit: not ok
Rifles analogy
Rifle with only limited automatic fire: ok
Rifle with unlimited automatic fire: not ok
Your question is simply silly.
As far as I have seen, this doll only transmits audio to an attacker if the attacker exploits a bug in the Bluetooth interface to run malicious software on the doll. ... ... a no brainer. So why do you raise them as example?
No, he is running the standard software on the Doll
The doll is attackable, hence its license, if it ever had any, is void as the BNetzA argued in their press notice.
The same would happen with your phone or smartTV
Any device with a microphone and a radio can have the same kind of behavior due to software bugs.
Of course it can. Facepalm.
And when it happens AND GETS DISCOVERED the BNetzA will place such a device from category A) into category B)
As soon as the bugs are fixed the device can be put back into the other category.
What are you arguing about? Having laws and arbitrarily ignoring them just: because ...????????? I mean you are asking the people working at the BNetzA to neglect their duty. They can be sued for that. Why not let them do their duty?
You are unfortunately mistaken. I understand thermodynamics very well.
So the only two rules/laws that you could remotely abuse and declare universal are:
a) entropy increases over time
b) the energy of a closed system is constant
Both laws are not suited to describe anything of relevance in a pumped storage plant. So if someone claims, as my parent: "Laws of thermodynamics dictate that efficiency of a pumped storage can never exceed X%" then he is wrong. The next best sentence than usually is: friction. And: friction is not part of the realm of thermodynamics, it belongs to mechanics. Just for your interest.
b) would not apply because the system is not closed, not even the combined energy of two pools that never get refilled by rain etc. describe a "constant energy" (or even closed) system.
a) true, but not relevant as translated into this problem it only would mean: wait till the end of the universe and all water will be in the lower basin. In other words: the so universal everywhere valid law: is pointless in this case. Hence: it is obviously not as universal as people like you claim.
Wow, that was so easy again.
I already gave you the layman's summary about TLOTD, and more no one who is not working in the topic needs ever in his life: "as soon as a form of energy is converted into heat, it is extremely difficult/impossible to convert it back into another energy form." ... or for that matter: sending a probe to Jupiter.
And: that has nothing to do with the theoretical or practical limits of thousands of topics in engineering and or physics. E.g. "photo electric effect", or electric engine, or charging a capacitor or transmitting electric power over a cable
The book seems interesting, though. Perhaps I buy it anyway.
I did not say or meant to say that the law makes. I tried to explain what the law is.
The law divides devices that use radio waves for transmission of voice into two big groups:
A) allowed, partly with restrictions, like requiring a license e.g. for VHF radios on boats
B) not allowed
As the law right now is, the interpretation of "Die Bundesnetzargentur" is: such devices fall into category B. The mentioned agency is the agency that grants licenses for A) if the person passes the tests (in case a license is needed, as for naval short range radio certificate (SRC) ). It is somewhat equivalent to the US FCC and NCTA.
To get the parliament to change the law for such a trivial case, especially when every member will be aware about the bugs that allow the eavesdropping: is basically zero.
Sorry,
you are either the stupids nitpicker I have ever heard of or simply don't want to grasp it. ... and that was the point.
This doll is no more capable of picking up my phone's microphone input than your phone is
Facepalm, no one said this. However my phone is able to pick up what you are talking if the Doll sends it to my phone
What you say about our phones is irrelevant anyway, but I give you a hint: a phone is a device that is PURPOSELY designed to allow wire less COMMUNICATION via radio waves. It has a FCC number e.g. and gets in EVERY COUNTRY where it is sold an APROVEL, or can't be sold.
That doll is SUPPOSED to be a DOLL and NOTHING MORE. The Bluetooth chip involved might require an FCC number, too. No idea. The doll is NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE. Correct?
However the doll can be ABUSED as a COMMUNICATION DEVICE. That is illegal on several ends first the owners don't know it, secondly it has not the required LICENCE as a COMMUNICATION DEVICE.
To make it half way legal and your point halfway correct, the Doll needs at least a license/ist own FCC number to be legaly used in "consented communications". Every BABY PHONE has such a license. Why not the Doll???
And then finally, why you don't want to grasp the fact about the secret spying, is beyond me. It is ILLEGAL to OWN devices that have the sole PURPOSE to be used for EVESDROPPING for everyone except LAW ENFORCEMENT (under order of a judge!)
This all has nothing to do with the question if the Doll had a build in mobile phone, uses Bluetooth, uses Wifi or is an UHF radio. The simple fact that it is transmitting voice is the start of the legal problem chain.
And instead of arguing wether the german agencay that pointed out that those devices are illegal is right or wrong, I would suggest to check your own laws regarding that first.
E.g. start with: http://www.wikihow.com/Get-an-...
Wow, you need a license to operate a powerfull radio transmitter. In Germany you unfortunatly need basically for EVERY apparatus that does transmissions a license. Either the one producing the device. or the owner, or both.
I guess as soon as the software bugs are weeded out the doll simply counts as sophisticated baby phone, and all is fine. So what is your proble?
Sorry for the random capitalization of singel words, but this is IE under Win 10, it is autocorrecting bullshit and I can not see all mistakes (because the whole text is red)
Well,
if you think I don't write coherent, then let me ask 2 question:
a) did you even read the summary?
b) did you read the article?
My phone can not be used as mobile radio to pick up your phones microphone input and transfer that microfone input as "wireless signals" that happen to be BT and then play them back as audio on my phone.
If I gift you such a doll, and you think "what a silly gift" and put it on your desk: I can spy on you. Such spying and using such devices for spying is illegal. It is exactly the same thing as if I hand you nice looking stone with a "bug" inside. That it uses Bluetooth in this particular context is irrelevant, every "wireless transfer method" would fal under the same argumentation. Was that now coherent enough?
Sorry, I only try to explain, and really grasp what you want to know. Obviously you have done neither a) nor b) above and just sidejumped into the discussion.
The point it is using Bluetooth.
So it is a "wireless communication device".
I did not check the law, as there was no real case in court. It was only a "recommendation" by the agency that gives licenses to radio operators and telecommunications etc.
Look at it from this point of view: it is illegal to place a "bug" into your rooms for private persons, regardless if relatives etc. And this doll comes Close to a bug.
Ofc, there are different calling conventions.
Usually C pushes arguments from left to right onto the stack and the caller cleans up the stack (because of variable argument lists), in Pascal arguments get pushed from right to left and the called procedure/fuction cleans up the stack.
Interfacing with C you usually do via so called 'units'. Units have an interface section and an implementation section. In the interface section you define functions/procedures and call also define if they are written in a different language (Assembly, C, Fortran), unfortunately there is no standard how to do that exactly. (Implementation section would be empty and you have to link with the relevant C library, ofc.)
Most C compilers also used to support 'extern PASCAL' or 'extern FORTRAN' keywords/declarations. But again I think there is no standard for that.
Well, then the AI is in the camera but not in the computer doing the driving :) and we have another AI doing route planning :)
But strictly speaking both are not AI and the whole system neither.
How I understand it, every stranger can connect to the Doll. And as I understand it: it is a bug that the device can be activated without activating the 'recording light'. I doubt parents know that.
Answering to both poste.
Scrum 'by the book' suggests 6 week long sprints.
Most teams do 2 or 3 weeks. One week makes only in the rarest cases sense.
In a Scrum project you test inside of the sprint. But we don't have alpha and beta testing.
While a sprint result should be shipable, it is not necessarily shipped. E.g. a big online game with half yearly updates might still be developped with a few sprints and then testd and bug fixed.
Most projects I was involved in are done with Scrum. We allways had a completely tested Sprint result, each sprint. Usually the result was accepted in the sprint review, due to a manual demonstration. Often there where testers who tested after the feature was done: during the sprint.
A sprint can not be declared finished unless, a feature is DONE. How you define done is up to the team and the organization.
Some might define done without thouroughful testing ...
My teams don't.
they don't plan and test their work, ...
All agile methods emphasize testing. All emphasize to have well educated people, which means they have a plan in thier mind and don't need to sketch plans on the board first.
So, you probably never have worked in an agile team
Facepalm
You should read the relevant wikipedia articles :)
The article is nit about drugs but about cyber crime and SWATing ... you coukd at least 'glimpse' over the summary.
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
Frankly, not understanding how "the law" works is a pretty bonehead attitude.
The law is clear. What do you expect the judge to do? Say: "well, lets make an exception, because it is just a doll!"?
It does not change the fact that the doll obviously can be used by third parties to hack into and listen to conversations in the house of the doll owner.
On my Smartphone are no interesting apps.
Everything has internet access disabled, except google maps and Safari unless if I have WiFi ofc.
If anything would spy on me, I most certainly would notice that due to network activity and bandwith consumption.
That is why I don't have an Echo, or such a doll :D
You can call a C library or OS functiom from Pascal, too.
There is no difference.
C is not something magically, you know ...
He meant Pascal, the human. Not Pascal, the language. ... or basically every pro edural language.
And Pascal as languge is as good as C in doing math