...and once again, people are lining up to give up their rights, explaining (as if they know anything) that the police MUST know something, otherwise why would they disable cellular communication AND begging the question and IMPLICITLY giving police that authority.
Boston PD does not have the authority to shut down cell towers. All they can do is "ask" the carriers to do so. All you who are sheepling in support of this are giving the police these draconian powers THEY DON'T RIGHTLY HAVE.
Let's just add this: "But think of the children!" "If this only saves one life... it's worth it." It doesn't, it won't, and it isn't.
The reason to give up your rights isn't "because security" nor "because police" nor "because terrorism." And for those who say "Too soon... let's let them take away our rights in the name of security and we'll review later..." there is no later. When you open Pandora's box of giving LEP powers they don't otherwise have, they _never_ give them back.
NO there is NO software out there to brick your phone if they try to break in.
Police State powers should not extend beyond a cursory inspection of the person's possessions. That means "item - one cellphone" and put it back down, not attempt to get data from it.
As for the question "why the XXXX does a phone need to retain..." it's really begging too many questions. The fact is that in retaining WiFi associations and cell-tower locations a phone is able to connect quicker. As for the 659 geolocation points, some of those were likely in the EXIF data on the stored pictures.
"This is a problem in the software developing side." No, this is not a problem at all, and tangential to the topic.
Seems to me if you "don't really care" about the topic, don't understand the technology, and just want to whine about "the software developing side[sic]" you should go back to what you were doing before your rant.
A hilarious descripton of how a multiple-personality syndrome schizophrenic feels during his daily therapy session. Please repost on twitter as appropriate. This is merely a snippet from a book, which I'm using to demonstrate schizophrenia. (fair use.)
Your means "owned by you."
You're means "you are".
Sentences need verbs to not be fragments>
Now here we go:
> I'm glad your happy Steve
There's that your/you're thing I was mentioning.
> By the way you pretending the material is covered by copyright does raise some questions.
There's that lacking a verb thing I was mentioning.
Kindly take your multi-personality-disorder self and go all the way back to the third grade. That way you can learn that words that sound the same (your, you're, it's, its, there, their, they're) don't mean the same thing. You'll also learn sentence diagramming, which will help your illiteracy as you'll see verbs really ARE required in a sentence.
Need more meds. The Shaun multi-personality-beast appears stupid and illiterate. This will not sell more bs books of hokey poems.
If only our tongues were made from glass would ass-kissers cause bleeding rectums?
I bought a copy on AMZ. I wrote a review. Here is the response:
Feb 14, 2013 6:50:07 PM PST
Micheal Bradshaw says:
This guy has never read Shane's book notice he doesn't have the certified Purchase from Amazon underneath his review. He just saw some immature idiots on the internet making a fuss about some other idiot who when he was told to credit Shane's work decided to throw a infantile temper tantrum. this guy just an idiot. Who writes a review about a book he hasn't read. Someone is emotionally disturbed like this guy
Services providers such as Google and Facebook use a network of geodiverse servers throughout the world. Regularly, data that are given to one server are synchronized to another server in another datacenter, another city, and even another country.
If a putative plaintiff is not shown harm by his data shared between his posting in Skokie with it showing up on a server in Beijing, plaintiff would have a hard time showing that the same data, on the same server, being accessed by the same defendant (e.g google) is violating the wiretap laws by doing so from a different "service." If they refile this one these lawyers are the only ones making bank.
There's no "grey area"... the law is clear. What's "grey" is how the powers that be (the US Govt.) misapplies whichever section of the law, trades civil charges for criminal charges, "seizes" (steals) domain names, etc.
The grey area is where the US Govt. isn't held accountable for its actions. The grey area is where its "ICE" steals domain names and websites and revenue. The grey area is where this is perfectly ok and nobody dares comment on it.
The rabid elephant in the room is the US Govt and its ICE goon squad. They, and their puppet masters the MPAA and RIAA need to be taken out front and shot and left for dead. That's why they're working hard to eliminate the 2nd Amendment... so they won't have to deal with any threats to their holy mission to stamp out anything Hollywood didn't decide was how things are done 60 years ago.
Finding the answer took less time than asking the question.
Explaining it to you took more also.
Now you get the chance to show whether you're a man "oops, my bad, I should have googled first" or a hicktard "How darr yaz tellz me to googalz, why I otter hitch up me buggie and come beet down yar door."
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.
Apple to Court:
Samsung put out a press release so we should just win the case right now. No need for a trial or a jury or finders of fact or law or anything. Give it us. Give it us now.