CloudTalkin

About

Username
CloudTalkin
Joined
Visits
103
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,435
Badges
1
Posts
919

Reactions

1.3KLike0Dislike414Informative

  • New Jersey Court rules suspects can be compelled to hand over phone passcodes

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    sdw2001 said:
    MplsP said:
    We have had search warrants which enabled law enforcement to examine anything they want since the start of the country.
    So would smart phones have ever been exempted?

    If you don't trust your government you need a new government.  
    Except this isn't about a search warrant or whether the government has a right to search the phone. It's about whether someone can be compelled to unlock their phone.

    The 'foregone conclusion' argument they state still doesn't make sense to me. Even if they know the messages exist, they don't know the content. If their mere existence was enough evidence, they wouldn't need the warrant and passcode, so it would stand to reason that the content of the messages is the real issue. Providing the passcode is tantamount to providing the content and would seem to be self-incrimination. 
    I agree. I don’t understand why they can’t just get a warrant to examine the contents of the phone.

    As I read it, they did just exactly that.   The article reported:
    "When a warrant was secured for a closer inspection, Andrews claimed providing the passcodes was the equivalent of being compelled to provide "testimony" that could be self-incriminating. "

    So, I ask again, what is the difference between searching a phone or file cabinet?
    The difference between searching a phone and a file cabinet is the 5th amendment.  With a proper warrant, the government can open that file cabinet without your help, thus no self-incrimination.  The phone, requiring you to provide your password, is a different matter altogether.  I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself. NJSC apparently disagrees. Fortunately, they aren't the final arbiter.  The SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this and other tech/Constitution issues.
    muthuk_vanalingamrazorpitGG1sportyguy209beowulfschmidt

  • Apple ordered to pay PanOptis $506.2M for infringing LTE patents

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    trustnoone00 said:
    Kuyangkoh said:
    Hmmm..... these LTE modems are made And supplied by Intel or Qualcom?? 
    This right here is why I’m a bit confused. Apple licenses the technology from these two companies and then is found guilty of infringement on technology that isn’t theirs.

    I would be very grateful if someone would be able to explain this one.  Is it because of How Apple has implemented it into their devices?
    A patent holder claiming infringement can sue upstream and downstream in the supply chain.  They can sue one entity or several at different stages of involvement with the offending tech.  It's not how Apple implemented PanOptis' patented tech, it's that they did (claimed) implement it.  A patent holder can even sue end users.  Datatern infamously sued end users in an attempt to end-around Microsoft and SAP.
    killroymuthuk_vanalingammwhite

  • Micro LED screens coming to Apple Watch, but not until 2023 or 2024

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    My favorite TV reviewer talks a little about MiniLED and MicroLED.  The video is a bit long at 17 minutes, but his discussion of Mini and Micro occur within the first 8 minutes.  Warning: Vincent has a very dry wit with a deadpan delivery.  It may catch you off guard and you'll giggle involuntarily.  He's very good at what he does.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0072hZHdI
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • US WeChat ban could cut global iPhone shipments by 30%, says Ming-Chi Kuo

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    rotateleftbyte said:
    If WeChat is banned in the USA can that ruling be enforced worldwide? i.e. banning it from iPhones used only in China? It isn't banned there or does the decree signed by the POTUS apply worlwide by default?
    It seems to me that there is no jurisdiction for the ban to apply outside the USA or am I really misguided?
    The WeChat ban would prevent Apple from hosting the app in the App Store.  We don't know if it would be Apple's US app store or all of it's app stores worldwide.  The ban would be a prohibition against US companies hosting WeChat.  Jurisdiction wouldn't matter.  If applied globally, it would mean no US companies could host the app anywhere in the world.  
    baconstangCarnage

  • Micro LED screens coming to Apple Watch, but not until 2023 or 2024

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
     Apple has been in discussions over micro LED for some years, and is believed to be already gearing up to produce devices with the related mini LED technology.


    Nice recap until the last sentence.  That sentence is only going to serve to further cement the confusion of the people who already think the technologies are related.  Micro LED is more closely related to OLED.  They are both emissive screen technologies where the individual pixels are lit to produce an image.  Mini LED is a backlighting technology that requires an LCD layer for image production.
    muthuk_vanalingamHank2.0dysamoriaRayz2016rundhvid