A new meaning to platform agnostic. Just leave off the file extension.
If your calamari turns into rubber bands, you're probably overcooking it.
You can't trademark Direct Sound. Microsoft already has DirectSound.
No, I'm assuming that your only need to be at a border is international travel. And that's a very specific exception that's been interpreted from the fourth amendment. A warrant is only one way to establish reasonableness. At the border, it's been reasoned to be not unreasonable.
border...domestic... I sense a disconnect here.
GPS doesn't enter into it for most phones, particularly those that don't have it.
The FCC mandated in 1996 that location capabilities be within 125 meters. This can be done with triangulation alone, but most phones started getting GPS chips around this time. If a cell phone is only on one tower, fine. But it probably won't stay there.
Again, the registered owner does not matter if they are tracking by location.
But they can also use their data to call that phone - even without the phone number - and simply ask the person. If they're a legitimate eye-witness, they'll respond.
You're right - E911 works on any network and even on unactivated phones. But unless the caller threw away the phone, it can be traced with the cell company's help. Either pinging the phone to respond with GPS or just triangulating by tower.
The fact is, it was ruled legitimate because it's not truly anonymous:
Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.
If they need to they can almost certainly track down the caller. Even most prepaid phones in the US require a verified billing address.
I for one don't think that the accuser should ever be anonymous when it comes to court cases, since we would have a right to face them in a court of law.
Hint: an E911 call is not anonymous (in most cases). But even if they are, we're only talking about establishing reasonable suspicion. That's all it takes to make a traffic stop. Everything that happened beyond that is fully legal and by the book. The search was based on an odor which is also an established probable cause (although parallel construction could be an issue if they didn't actually smell anything).
To equate it to something domestic, think of a noise complaint. The officer can come to your door and knock. If you answer and they see something inside, or they see something suspicous while they're there, they would still have to get a warrant. The difference in this case, is that they pulled someone over and smelled something. Pulling someone over does not require probable cause - only reasonable suspicion. The anonymous tip satisfies that just fine. The smell they found during the stop is the probable cause. And the car isn't quite so secure against search as a home. At least according to the courts.
And this is exactly what happened, more or less. The search came after they smelled something (which I suppose is easy to lie about as long as they find something).
It goes far beyond caller ID. They know your GPS location and they know your phone. Unless you know how to set up a burner phone (it's not overly simple in the US - most prepay companies verify billing address). E911 is not a normal phone call.
Actually - even if the photographer retains full creative control, being able to fine-tune focus later is good. Just like camera raw where the parameters can be adjusted later.
Especially if your vision isn't 20/20 looking through that little viewfinder lens.
But the bug probably is heartbleed. They're just not disclosing that they were affected.
I don't think MTP is such a bad idea. It lets Android use ext2 without breaking USB connectivity with Windows. What would you suggest for the masses?