Skip to main content

Home/ Open Web/ Group items tagged automobile

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Life after Google: Brad Neuberg's HTML5 start-up | Deep Tech - CNET News - 0 views

news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018687-264.html

cnet steven-shankland brad-neuberg HTML5 location SVG-Web

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Oct 10 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Oct 10
     
    Pretty funny quote: "I think the future is going to WebKit". Brad Neuberg is leaving the gDOCS-Chrome JavaScritpt team to strat his own "HTML5" business. He's an expert on the SVG Web. About a year ago i read a lament from a web developer concluding that SVG was destined to be the Web docuemnt format, replacing HTML. Now i wonder if that guy was Neuberg? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018687-264.html Sent at 10:05 AM on MondayGary: Finally, the money shot: "Somebody will take some HTML5, and geolocation, and mobile applications, hook into Facebook perhaps, and they're going to do something unexpected." Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018687-264.html#ixzz124U9xTZ3 Sent at 10:13 AM on MondayGary: I think Brad is right about the combination of location with the rest of the App Web. Olivia and i have had our EVO's for about two weeks now and it's amazing. She also has Citania's iPAD, also an amazing device. What stuns me about the Android EVO is how extraordinary the apps are that combine location with information specific to that location. Incredible. I don't know how i ever lived withou this. One things for sure, my desktop can't do this and neither can my notebook. Sent at 10:16 AM on MondayGary: There is another aspect i see that i guess could be called "location switiching". This is when you QR Scan QR barcode on something and the location of that objects life is at your fingertips. Everything from maps, street views, web sites, product history, artist/designer/developer and on and on. We went to the San Carlos Wine and Art Festival yesterday, where Laurel and San Carlos streets are closed off to traffic, and lined with food, wine and beer vendors of all sorts, artists and craftsmen, and even an antigue car show with ully restored automobiles and other vehicles. It was amazing. But then i started QR scanning! Wow. The Web merged with life like nothing i've ever imagined possible.The key was having the Internet in my pocket, and the Internet k
Paul Merrell

The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant | Motherboard - 0 views

motherboard.vice.com/...r-cell-phone-without-a-warrant

surveillance state location-data 4th Amendment litigation

shared by Paul Merrell on 13 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • The government and police regularly use location data pulled off of cell phone towers to put criminals at the scenes of crimes—often without a warrant. Well, an appeals court ruled today that the practice is unconstitutional, in one of the strongest judicial defenses of technology privacy rights we've seen in a while.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the government illegally obtained and used Quartavious Davis's cell phone location data to help convict him in a string of armed robberies in Miami and unequivocally stated that cell phone location information is protected by the Fourth Amendment. "In short, we hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy," the court ruled in an opinion written by Judge David Sentelle. "The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation."
  • In Davis's case, police used his cell phone's call history against him to put him at the scene of several armed robberies. They obtained a court order—which does not require the government to show probable cause—not a warrant, to do so. From now on, that'll be illegal. The decision applies only in the Eleventh Circuit, but sets a strong precedent for future cases.
  • Indeed, the decision alone is a huge privacy win, but Sentelle's strong language supporting cell phone users' privacy rights is perhaps the most important part of the opinion. Sentelle pushed back against several of the federal government's arguments, including one that suggested that, because cell phone location data based on a caller's closest cell tower isn't precise, it should be readily collectable.  "The United States further argues that cell site location information is less protected than GPS data because it is less precise. We are not sure why this should be significant. We do not doubt that there may be a difference in precision, but that is not to say that the difference in precision has constitutional significance," Sentelle wrote. "That information obtained by an invasion of privacy may not be entirely precise does not change the calculus as to whether obtaining it was in fact an invasion of privacy." The court also cited the infamous US v. Jones Supreme Court decision that held that attaching a GPS to a suspect's car is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. Sentelle suggested a cell phone user has an even greater expectation of location privacy with his or her cell phone use than a driver does with his or her car. A car, Sentelle wrote, isn't always with a person, while a cell phone, these days, usually is.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • "One’s cell phone, unlike an automobile, can accompany its owner anywhere. Thus, the exposure of the cell site location information can convert what would otherwise be a private event into a public one," he wrote. "In that sense, cell site data is more like communications data than it is like GPS information. That is, it is private in nature rather than being public data that warrants privacy protection only when its collection creates a sufficient mosaic to expose that which would otherwise be private." Finally, the government argued that, because Davis made outgoing calls, he "voluntarily" gave up his location data. Sentelle rejected that, too, citing a prior decision by a Third Circuit Court. "The Third Circuit went on to observe that 'a cell phone customer has not ‘voluntarily’ shared his location information with a cellular provider in any meaningful way.' That circuit further noted that 'it is unlikely that cell phone customers are aware that their cell phone providers collect and store historical location information,'” Sentelle wrote.
  • "Therefore, as the Third Circuit concluded, 'when a cell phone user makes a call, the only information that is voluntarily and knowingly conveyed to the phone company is the number that is dialed, and there is no indication to the user that making that call will also locate the caller,'" he continued.
  • Paul Merrell on 13 Jun 14
     
    Another victory for civil libertarians against the surveillance state. Note that this is another decision drawing guidance from the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Jones, shortly before the Edward Snowden leaks came to light, that called for re-examination of the Third Party Doctrine, an older doctrine that data given to or generated by third parties is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.   
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page