or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

That's what it appears to imply. The 'Allow "Hey Siri"' setting includes the note 'You can speak to Siri without pressing the home button by saying "Hey Siri" when connected to power.' and that is how the phone behaves - only works when plugged in.
Not according to the note in settings.
 Apple obviously didn't cite it to draw attention to willful infringement - that would be silly. Apple's position was that the WARF patent itself was invalidated as obvious under prior art (Hesson and Steely), which is also why they declined to license. The court has disagreed.
Firstly, it was a question. Secondly, the question was not at all restricted to the issue of call metadata collection - it was, in response to a broader statement, about intelligence activities in general.I have no idea whether metadata has been useful. I would have expected that, in certain situations and with suitable analysis, it could be, but I'm skeptical that its value justifies the means.
No, it wasn't an example of that, for the reason I stated.
Not sure where you got those ideas about the MacBook. I have 8 GB in mine and, especially since moving to El Cap, it is powerful enough for much more than web browsing. Great screen, excellent battery life, very light and portable, and it handles video with no problems. For advanced photo editing it is perfectly usable - for example a DXO OpticsPro export with prime noise reduction takes about 3 times longer than on my 2.8 GHz Core i7 MBP.
Yep - there is no other conceivable explanation. Any explanations such as that they realized that there would be too many legal obstacles, or that the public resistance would be too great - unthinkable.
 I must have missed that clause in the Constitution. And in any case, under a warrant or court order, how is forced revelation of the contents of your computer any different to forced revelation of the contents of your filing cabinet?
You are paranoid. Adobe voluntarily implemented that feature, as have many companies, probably to make sure that they do not fall foul of accusations of aiding and abetting anyone breaching the 1992 Counterfeit Detection Act. As for bragging about high-profile counter-terrorist operations, they don't, which is why you generally don't hear about them unless they unavoidably become public. If you believe that effective intelligence-based actions have not been important in...
"Could be forced..." How, exactly?And when you say that they only care about the terrorists, not the little people, bear in mind that they only care about the terrorists because it is their job to prevent the terrorists from hurting the little people. And that, of course, is a balancing act between the opposing goals of privacy and intelligence gathering.
New Posts  All Forums: