Odd, normally frivolous purchases are made by Softies in September... not August.
Ahh The Register... so sensationalist to burry the key point.
The actual Avast blog post is more specific: https://blog.avast.com/2014/07/08/tens-of-thousands-of-americans-sell-themselves-online-every-day/
In their test they purchased 20 Android phones.
Not being an Android expert I can't say when/if full disk encryption landed (or if it is mandatory) on Android... but WP8 uses the same BitLocker technology as the desktop & Server versions of Windows... so if you do a factory reset on your phone (or successful remote wipe), all of the data on it is gone.
One caveat is that if you were saving photos or other data to an micro sd card and forgot to remove that before selling it... then that data may still be readable (except on Windows Phone 7).
Note I said rootkit, not jailbreak or unlock for side loaded apps.
I won't go into the methods used here, but they tend to be more complex than running an app on the phone.
Which is why I'd mentioned that it's a lot harder to exploit by someone who is not a phone manufacturer... who are the ones writing actually kernel drivers (and so can do anything on the phone).As for why WinPhone is not mentioned... I think it's probably related to the fact that no WP8 API can provide access to call history or so. The APIs begin available only in WP8.1, and that's just 2 months ago, maybe they've got budget allocated for WP cancelled because they thought it's not possible. (It'd be great if that is the case)
Have you tried using those APIs? Have they worked for you? They aren't exactly usable by many.
Depends on how many permissions you need to be evil... and just being an app that remains in the sandbox which doesn't normally let you do things like silent SMS sending & interception (as one example) doesn't get you very far as it's not something most apps are capable of, not because they don't request the permission, but because they are not granted the permission... so you would need to exploit to a lower level and greater permission level to go your evil.
3) This doesn't relate in any way, shape or form to the NSA metadata program, because the NSA metadata program is about "data voluntarily given to a third party organisation to which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy" (Smith v. Maryland), whereas the Supreme Court has held that "Fourth Amendment protection afforded to closed computer files and hard drives is similar to the protection afforded to a person's closed containers and closed personal effects" (United States v. Peden), which is covered by the fourth Amendment.
4) SCOTUS went out of their way to make clear that they are not doing an assessment of the constitutionality of metadata: "Because the United States and California agree that these cases involve searches incident to arrest, these cases do not implicate the question whether the collection or inspection of aggregated digital information amounts to a search under other circumstances."
The question in this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA, or hacking. It is whether a police officer can search your phone as part of "search incident to a lawful arrest"."
Today it doesn't, just as the Lawrence v. Texas majority didn't directly address same-sex marriage, but was used as a basis for Perry v. Brown and others.
Why not? Because that wasn't the issue brought before the court. Courts tend to confine their rulings to the scope of the issue at hand... which is what we saw today in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning where they largely shot down recess appointments but did not vacate previous NLRB rulings since the unlawful recess appointments... rulings that will be subjects of separate cases whose eventual rulings will be based on todays ruling.
From the ruling, note this part of a paragraph (emphasis mine):
Alternatively, the Government proposes that law enforcement agencies "develop protocols to address" concerns raised by cloud computing. Reply Brief in No. 13–212, pp. 14–15. Probably a good idea, but the Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols. The possibility that a search might extend well beyond papers and effects in the physical proximity of an arrestee is yet another reason that the privacy interests here dwarf those in Robinson.
That could have implications if/when SCOTUS does eventually hear an 'NSA metadata' case.
No, but getting a warrant can be pretty easy... especially in a case like the one that was ruled on.
You have a perfect example of when patents work, they are totally awesome. But lets say I "invent" something that is chances are, someone else would have come up with independently because it's much the most obvious way to solve a problem. IE. The disclosure of the patent isn't really all that beneficial to society. It's worth noting that the less useful or obvious a patent is to society, the more useful it is for suing people with and profiting handsomely from. The patent system actually ENCOURAGES crappy patents by the virtue of how it fundamentally works.
Have we forgotten what the P in IP stands for? Property.
Some property you have a paper title or deed to prove your ownership, other things a claim is established through simple possession and trade.
You and I can both claim ownership of a given plot of land... but whoever can demonstrate a more substantive claim is likely to win the case through some kind of arbitration, granted even if you have a piece of paper that says you own it, if there is a pre-existing substantive claim... you can still lose... so goes for the patent system.
I still don't get your point other than that no system is perfect... which I don't think anyone is going to argue with... but that it is better than the alternatives of not having a system that protects IP.
Have you even read Adam Smith?
If so... did you understand his writings on division of labor... or stop to consider their implications on the importance of IP protections?
You have no leg to stand on when repeatedly you've simply dismissed counter arguments with even less of a response... but then this is typical behavior from a proven hypocrite who is on the record advocating for the removal of rights from some, but outraged about the attempted removal of rights from others.
As I said before (notice how I keep citing things despite your refusals to do likewise?):
Understand yet? Or should I repeat myself even more about my supporting of free speech, including that which I disagree with?Yet you boasted several times about how you'd defend the KKK or NAMBLA's right to speak at some imaginary event you'd actually give a rat's * about.
And boasted 'several times'? I'd referenced the first post later as you kept trying to justify your irrelevant hypotheticals which were along the lines of "Well if in another situation, if so and so had said something waaaay worse... then would it be ok to fire him?" sort.It's pretty damn easy to brag about how principled you are when you get to pick and choose when you apply your principles.
You keep trying to find fault with my principals and their application (based on your limited understanding of both) and keep failing so miserably.
Have I sought to deny someone the opportunity to speak or punish someone for something they said which I may have disagreed with or even found offensive?
Of course, much of this is moot as you continue to pick & choose which points to address and so ignore the rest, somehow pretending that if you can nit-pick one thing enough, the entire argument fails... as you just did here.
So Islam & Mormonism are cults? ...just to name a couple more recent religions.The term "witch-hunt" since the 1930s has also been in use as a metaphor to refer to moral panics in general (frantic persecution of perceived enemies). This usage is especially associated with the Second Red Scare of the 1950s, with the McCarthyist persecution of suspected communists in the United States.
Yup, that definition does seem to apply to this case.What level of speech counter to the companies' values can be considered unacceptable?
What level of speech are usually considered unacceptable?Nobody is stating that he can't say stupid things, and nobody is taking away his freedoms.
I'm pretty sure that California labor law disagrees.He represented the public shareholder face of a company and the shareholders decided that their core values don't jibe with his.
Public shareholders? Who? Are you even aware of how Mozilla is structured? Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation (a 501(c)3). If you can find shares on the open market... that'd be quite a surprise to many.If Steve Jobs rose from the grave and stated "I'm really not very happy with race mixing and Oh, BTW, Jews suck.", then the first thing that would happen is we'd all say "Whoa, Steve Jobs is a Zombie!", but the second thing we'd say is "Wow, that guy is a racist, and he can't come back and run Apple again"
Unless Eich actually said something to the effect of what you described regarding... any group... your attempted analogy doesn't hold much relevance.