301–310 of 622 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s “open” but not libre or patent unencumbered.
That's interesting. That's the first time I've seen a "[deleted]" comment. IIRC, HN would just disallow deleting if somebody replied. Maybe this is from replying on an already deleted comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t restricted to Boost Mobile. It is only available on devices with the C1 or C1X modem, though. I assume this is because of specifics with the third party modems that most models in the wild have vs what Apple is doing in-house with their C1(X). If you call emergency services it will still provide precise location.
>It isn’t restricted to Boost Mobile. Why does it list specific carriers, then?
Emergency services (with the proper software) have been able to get your precise location from your phone for a while now. This isn’t a new capability and shouldn’t be surprising.
The article seems to describe another system which can be involved externally.
I'll ask people, because I'm in the right circles. I want to know where it works. I've been VERY clear in my messaging to HN (on the RCS issue and having ear blown out by iPhone last week) that I am not going to glaze Apple even if the new modems they built interest me. They are usually sort of a neutral to me that has me more pissed off in the recent months than usual. Maybe send me one of your new devices if you do…
Trilaterate :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should it not be available with a valid court order as well?
Why? What is the rationale? Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that anything goes as long as a court decrees it, in which case there’s nothing to debate really.
The problem is that individuals no longer have confidence in their institutions, for both good reasons (official corruption, motivated prosecutors, the dissolution of norms of executive behaviour) and bad ones (propaganda on Fox News, and the long tail of disinformation online).
The question becomes: how can citizens have confidence their rights will be protected? What structure would protect the right to privacy?
"and notify the user when such attempts are made to their device." We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make all attempts to, but it won't happen. What needs to happen is accountability. I should be able to turn off sharing personal information and if someone tries I should be notified and have recourse. This should also be retroactive. If I have turned off sharing and someone finds a technical loo…
Don't cheer that any policy be applied to technology you wouldn't want applied to your own brain. Imagine you get Neuralink and your best friend files for the right to be forgotten. Then poof. All your memories together gone.
If I send it to the company A, company B doesn't execute it unless they're a subsidiary of A (or A is their data controller) and my request was carefully crafted.
In the scenario you painted, that would mean that my _former_ friend has issued their request to me.
In that case? Fair. Poof if that's their wish.
Otherwise? How do you imagine it work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We aren't going to remove the security state What security state? They aren't doing this for anyone's safety. This is the surveillance and parallel construction state. > What needs to happen is accountability. No agency can have this power and remain accountable. Warrants are not an effective tool for managing this. Courts cannot effectively perform oversight after the fact. > The only way to stop the rampant abuse…
You people are so cynical. Its simply made for 911 calls. In the 2G era there was no compute space to just put in extra evil shit for fun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_resource_location_servic...
...you could just listen to calls in the clear. Pager traffic was completely unencrypted as well.
"and notify the user when such attempts are made to their device." We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make all attempts to, but it won't happen. What needs to happen is accountability. I should be able to turn off sharing personal information and if someone tries I should be notified and have recourse. This should also be retroactive. If I have turned off sharing and someone finds a technical loo…
We definitely won't get rid of it if we accept failure. I get that it seems extremely unlikely, but there's no use in trying to just mitigate the risk short term. One way or another that power will be abused eventually (if it isn't already).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". Under 42 USC § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officia…
Nearly impossibly hard to receive justice against government officials due to this standard
The cops involved in the most recent Minneapolis shooting will almost certainly face no repercussions because of this. The state can bring a case but the feds are clearly uninterested, they would simply take the case into federal court and spike it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The telco would be the one collecting it first, I assume. It would be interesting for someone in the EU to request their data from their telco, and if it contains these precise locations, question the usage.
Tescos in the EU are required to track location for emergency call purposes and provide it to the government in such occasions. That means they need the ability to collect it all the time.
They're raising the possibility of asking _why_ the data was collected if there was no emergency?
Of course if the telco doesn't store the rewuests/responses, there will be no records to show.