My favorite iPhone notes app is now a universal binary, with a native iPad UI. I’ve been beta testing it for a few weeks, and it’s just great. Not sure I’ll ever use Pages for iPad again.
Their web site isn’t updated with iPad specific screenshots yet, but it’s free download, so get it.
?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Shortly after the Electronic Frontier Foundation voiced concerns over the legality surrounding a pol...
Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=48e74008efa5974b209c803ab1d9a06b
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Imagination Technologies and MIPS today agreed to an alliance that would see the two promote each ot...
Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=d8813f6f61aea8b194f32839c38a44f5
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Today was the first day on the job at Yahoo News for John Cook, the “reporter/blogger” who filed the aforelinked piece “What is Apple Inc.’s role in task force investigating iPhone case?”.
His former employer, until earlier this month? Gawker Media.
Due to what I can only assume to be an editing error, this relationship was not mentioned in his piece.
?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The Macalope on this Yahoo News piece by John Cook questioning Apple’s role in the investigation, on the grounds that Apple is one of 25 companies that sit on the REACT task force steering committee.
What’s the counter-argument? That REACT should never investigate any crime against one of the companies on its steering committee? What company would sign up for that? My inbox is chockablock with messages from those who think Apple initiated this. That can’t happen. This is a criminal investigation, not a civil lawsuit. Apple gets to decide whether to file civil litigation. The San Mateo district attorney gets to decide whether to launch a criminal investigation. We don’t know yet whether Apple has been in contact with the DA, but, why wouldn’t they? They can tell the DA what happened. They can’t order the DA what to do.
?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Avram Piltch:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet?s leading digital rights advocacy group, has also taken a public position on the search, telling us that California?s search warrant is illegal and should never have been issued. In a phone interview this afternoon, EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick told us: ?There are both federal and state laws here in California that protect reporters and journalists from search and seizure for their news gathering activities. The federal law is the Privacy Protection Act and the state law is a provision of the penal code and evidence code. It appears that both of those laws may be being violated by this search and seizure.?
Granick said that, even if Jason Chen is under investigation for receipt of stolen property, the government has no right to issue a search warrant, because California law includes exceptions for journalists who are in receipt of information from sources.
Or, as summarized by The Macalope:
Shorter EFF: buying stolen merchandise is fine as long as you write a story about it.
God bless the EFF, they do good work, and I can see why they want to err on the side of the media. But this is uncharted territory. If you think paying $5,000 (or more — the $5,000 figure comes from Nick Denton) to purchase stolen property qualifies as “news gathering activities”, show me the case law.
?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The Electronic Frontier Foundation has criticized California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Tea...
Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=5e6194780e319613874ad1a757200890
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!AMD signaled a new direction for its workstation-class cards today by unveiling the ATI FirePro 2460...
Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=24083aa4e722cd148b945b42933b71c0
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!“They’re the real thing.”
?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Henry Blodget:
The search warrant is ambiguous about the specific reason the police gave for the search and seizure. Specifically, it’s possible — likely, even — that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone (“buying stolen property”).
If that’s the “probable cause” the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply.
Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.”
?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Website designed by Bartosz Brzezinski
Powered by blogdig.net