Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Data on the phone vs. data presented on the pho (Score 3, Interesting) 304

by pin0chet (#34924476) Attached to: Encrypt Your Smartphone — Or Else
To my knowledge, no court has addressed that particular issue to date. Professor Adam Gershowitz argues in his 2008 UCLA Law Review article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084503 that courts addressing warrantless cell phone searches might consider distinguishing between data that is stored locally on a cell phone and data that is accessible via a cell phone. The rationale for such a distinction is rooted in the notion of the "immediate grabbing space" which police are allowed to search incident to arrest.

Comment: Re:Slightly Inaccurate Summary (Score 1) 304

by pin0chet (#34923714) Attached to: Encrypt Your Smartphone — Or Else
Fair point; my short summary doesn't specify that warrantless searches of cell phones seized incident to arrest are presumptively lawful (barring exigent circumstances) only if the cell phone is "immediately associated with the arrestee" (i.e. in the arrestee's pocket). The article explains this crucial distinction in detail, noting that if you're arrested, your phone enjoys substantially greater protection from warrantless search if it's in your luggage, glove compartment, or trunk, rather than on your person.

The article further notes that California's Supreme Court is one of several courts that have ruled that cell phones seized incident to arrest may be searched without a warrant. However, Ohio's Supreme Court reached a different conclusion in a 2009 case, so the matter ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Encryption

+ - Encrypt Your Smartphone -- Or Else->

Submitted by pin0chet
pin0chet (963774) writes "Modern smartphones contain ever-increasing volumes of our private personal data — from text messages to images to emails — yet many smartphone security features can easily be circumvented by thieves or police officers equipped with off-the-shelf forensics equipment. Worse, thanks to a recent California Supreme Court ruling, police officers may be able to search your smartphone for hours without a warrant if you're arrested for any reason. Ars Technica has an article exploring the legal issues surrounding cell phone searches and explaining how you can safeguard your smartphone from the prying eyes of law enforcement officers."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:A good step forward, but... (Score 3, Informative) 72

by pin0chet (#31719316) Attached to: Obama Faces Major Online Privacy Test
Unlike government, not one of the firms in the coalition has the power to force you to hand information over to them. If you don't want Google or Microsoft or AT&T to have your information, don't use their services. Also, if a firm fails to adequately protect your data and you suffer harm as a result, depending on the terms of service you may be able to sue the firm. But if government wrongfully seizes your data, you generally cannot sue (absent acts of blatant bad faith.) And government has no financial incentive to safeguard your data, while companies like Google have a LOT to lose if their privacy reputation is damaged due to a data breach or other unscrupulous practice.

Comment: Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800 (Score 5, Insightful) 549

by pin0chet (#30121718) Attached to: Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors?
Easy. Get a 30" Desktop LCD like the Dell 3007wfp and run it at exactly 1/2 its native vertical and horizontal resolutions (1280x800). You essentially get the same quality as if it were the native resolution (well, one to one mapping at least) and none of that crazy TV stuff. The best part is that if somebody with, well, "normal" eyes wants to use the monitor in its full 2560x1600 glory, they can simply switch the resolution.
The Internet

+ - One Policy, One System, Universal Service->

Submitted by
oconnor663
oconnor663 writes "In response to the FCC's Notice of Inquiry on broadband, telcos and advocacy groups have submitted thousands of pages of comments. Unfortunately, it seems many of them have forgotten the biggest mistake telecom regulators ever made:

The American Telephone and Telegraph Company, or "Ma Bell," operated its telephone monopoly for the better part of the 20th century. For sixty years, regulators nurtured Ma Bell's control of the industry, convinced that the telephone market was a natural monopoly...Today, as the FCC invites comments on "a national broadband plan for our future," no one seriously believes that telecom monopolies are a good idea. Yet many of the proposed new rules are precisely what created the Bell monopoly in the first place."

Link to Original Source
United States

+ - One Policy, One System, Universal Service 1

Submitted by
pin0chet
pin0chet writes "In response to the FCC's Notice of Inquiry on 'a national broadband plan for our future,' telcos and advocacy groups have submitted thousands of pages of comments. Unfortunately, it seems many of them have forgotten the biggest mistake telecom regulators ever made:

The American Telephone and Telegraph Company, or "Ma Bell," operated its telephone monopoly for the better part of the 20th century. For sixty years, regulators nurtured Ma Bell's control of the industry, convinced that the telephone market was a natural monopoly...Today, as the FCC invites comments on "a national broadband plan for our future," no one seriously believes that telecom monopolies are a good idea...[yet many of the proposed new rules] are precisely what created the Bell monopoly in the first place."

Comment: Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score 1) 647

by pin0chet (#26799829) Attached to: WSJ Says Gov't Money Injection Won't Help Broadband
Wi-Max really can't operate without exclusively-licensed, and there's simply not enough of it to go around. The FCC has been dragging its feet on the AWS3 band, for instance, which is prime ground for a Wi-Max network. Breaking the DSL/Cable duopolies can happen only if the command-and-control spectrum allocation process is abandoned. Tim Wu made this point in the New York Times a few months ago, but it seems that nobody at the FCC has listened to him.

Comment: Re:So we've got a duopoly (Score 2, Interesting) 647

by pin0chet (#26799769) Attached to: WSJ Says Gov't Money Injection Won't Help Broadband

The tax breaks and other incentives given to the telcos by Congress in the 90s for network build-out never actually mandated the construction of residential high-speed fiber networks. (Read the 1996 Telecom Act if you don't believe me).

The telephone companies were never legally bound to deploy 50mbps symmetric FTTH. What actually happened was that some telco execs testified to Congress that incentives would hasten FTTH deployment. There were some extremely bold predictions made--predictions that turned out to be wildly optimistic--but if you look at the legislative history of the 200 billion, there is simply no basis for jailing anybody.

Comment: Re:So we've got a duopoly (Score 1) 647

by pin0chet (#26799707) Attached to: WSJ Says Gov't Money Injection Won't Help Broadband
What about Wi-Max? Or LTE? Or unlicensed Wi-Fi? Alternatives to cable and telco ISPs don't have to involve digging up the ground. They can use the airwaves. But since the FCC maintains rigid control over all but a few relatively small chunks of the spectrum, there are too few frequencies available for entrepreneurs to use. And the artificially high price of the spectrum that is available is held largely by major incumbents. Increase the quantity of spectrum available to firms, and new entrants would actually have a shot at getting their hands on enough spectrum to build a competitive WISP.

Comment: Re:Cognitive dissonance... (Score 1) 647

by pin0chet (#26799673) Attached to: WSJ Says Gov't Money Injection Won't Help Broadband
The bill doesn't define the term "open access"--it leaves that up to federal regulators. This means that if the FCC or NTIA decides to define open access as application-neutral network management, then ISPs wouldn't be allowed to give time-sensitive applications priority over non-time-sensitive ones.
Games

Will the FTC Target EULAs Next? 116

Posted by Soulskill
from the by-reading-this-you-consent-to-being-my-slave dept.
A few weeks ago, we discussed news that the Federal Trade Commission was planning to look into DRM and the way its characteristics are communicated to customers. Now, Joystiq's Law of the Game column speculates that EULAs could be on the FTC's list to review as well. "I would be willing to guess that within the next few years, the often maligned End User License Agreement ('EULA') may fall into the realm of being regulated as further 'consumer protection.' Is it necessary? ... The first and most common method [of consumer protection] is what is known as a 'plain language requirement.' The idea is that contracts written by lawyers are full of legal terms and are written in such a way that it takes a lawyer to decipher the actual meaning of all of the clauses. ... on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, it could be required that companies abandon EULA contracts all together in favor of a collection of FTC approved bullet points. The development and legal communities would, I assume, vehemently oppose this idea, but it is possible. Basically, the FTC would come up with a list of things all EULAs include, then a list of optional provisions that the licensor (the game company) could include."

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...