Rosyna
About
- Username
- Rosyna
- Joined
- Visits
- 13
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 250
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 87
Reactions
-
Dearth of new data from San Bernardino iPhone helpful to FBI investigation, sources say
That's a super weird way to spin, "As everyone expected, there was nothing useful at all on the San Bernardino iPhone"
The shooters destroyed their actual personal phones and left the work iPhone alone, so of course there was nothing on it. The FBI had a list of all the apps on the device from Apple, so they knew absolutely nothing useful was on it.
-
'1970' date bug could be used to wreck pre-iOS 9.3.1 devices over Wi-Fi, researchers say
The date bug was entirely fixed in iOS 9.3.
The iOS 9.3.1 update ONLY had changes to swcd, SharedWebCredentials.framework, symptomsd (all for the links bug), and mobileactivationd (for the iCloud activation bug present on iOS devices released in 2013 or earlier). It had no other changes.
The video shown was originally filmed on February 24th, as you can see by the date in the one console. This is before the release of iOS 9.3, so the iPad was running iOS 9.2.1.
The reason why the researchers said "upgrade to iOS 9.3.1" was because it was the latest version available when they decided to post the video on Tuesday and it is bad form to recommend they update to 9.3 when 9.3 still had the nasty links bug from iOS 9.0.
-
New York law could allow roadside 'textalyzer' checks for distracted driving
Please read the entirety of previous comments before continuing to post your nonsense.lkrupp said:
So all existing law regarding refusal to take a breathalyzer test and then being ‘punished’ by losing driving privileges is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS disagrees and has determined it is lawful to do so. You are wrong. And if the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional it is. They are the ones who decide, no one else.Rosyna said:You just stated the unconstitutional part, that you'd be punished for exercising your rights…
"Do this or else" is the very definition of being forced.
-
New York law could allow roadside 'textalyzer' checks for distracted driving
See my previous post. You cannot refuse a breathalyzer as it is non-testimonial evidence. Giving access to a phone is testimonial evidence and subject to the protections given in the 5th amendment. There is a strict dichotomy between these two things in US law.mike1 said:Rosyna said:You just stated the unconstitutional part, that you'd be punished for exercising your rights…
Not true at all. There is absolutely no difference between this and a breathalyzer. You agree to submit to a breathalyzer when you get your license or face revocation of your license.(the privilege). Period. End of story. You have a constitutional right not to submit to the breathalyzer but that does not mean your privilege to drive can not be revoked. People surrender their rights all the time. Non-disclosure agreements limit free speech, but they are entered into voluntarily, just like obtaining a driver's license. Breathalyzer results are not the preferred evidence in a DWI case, but it more easily allows the prosecutor to obain a blood test, which is more reliable. This test will likely make it easier to obtain a warrant for the phone. That test will better indicate whether the phone was being used lawfully (hands free) during the incident.
I'm also not sure why you brought up the red herring of NDAs. The first amendment covers restrictions on the government, not private persons.
-
New York law could allow roadside 'textalyzer' checks for distracted driving
A text message can be sent using only voice commands on every platform.konqerror said:
Not if it's a text message and, like the majority of trips, you're the only person in the car. Also, by Federal law, commercial operators, like trucks and buses, are prohibited from hands free use anyway.Rosyna said:
Of course, there's no way to prove you didn't use a hands free system or even that you were the one using the phone.
