3 ms·
That's exactly the bad article that started the misconception. This is a case where you need to let common sense override your trust in journalists. You are pr
by NoPiece 13y ago
That's exactly the bad article that started the misconception.
This is a case where you need to let common sense override your trust in journalists. You are probably smarter than them, you know more about tech and phones than them, don't trust them when they write stuff that doesn't make sense. Even if it were true don't you think some hacker woud have verified it by now? Offered a hack to stop it? They haven't because the article is dumb and wrong, and CNet should retract it. I'll cite the source cnet lazily misinterpreted if you give me a minute.
- NoPiece 13y agoHere is the original source, the court memorandum. You can see how grossly irresponsible/lazy/stupid Cnet was. Note that it is VERY clear that the government is asking to install a physical bug into a phone that works when the phone is off. It has nothign to do with the inherent hardware of the phone. http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20061127_0000842.SNY.htm/qx http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.2... Judge Jones granted the application, authorizing continued interception at the four restaurants and the installation of a listening device in Ardito's cellular telephone. The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be.