Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment I use Pocket (Score 1) 351

I use Firefox and have been using Pocket (from a bookmarklet) for ages. So I guess that makes me one of the FF users that likes Pocket. However even I don't think it's in the slightest bit appropriate to integrate the service into the browser.

As it happens, I have my FF UI so heavily customized (menus and status bars forever, man) that I don't see any visible trace of Pocket and didn't know it had been added in this way until this article popped up.

Comment Bookmarks (Score 2) 189

Or maybe "like" is an term with no formal meaning here and I'm just "liking" page because that's what we call "bookmarks" on this particular website. Or "favorites", or "starred", or whatever. I might even be "liking" the page because I want to remember what a bunch of douchebags the associated outfit have been to me or my family in the past and want to keep an eye on their marketing babble so that I can warn friends/family not to be caught out by it.

When I "favorite" a website in Internet Explorer, nobody thinks it implies I commercially endorse whatever organization's page it was. Why should a "like" infer that.

Of course in practice I firewall Facebook at the router.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

DOJ Often Used Cell Tower Impersonating Devices Without Explicit Warrants 146

Via the EFF comes news that, during a case involving the use of a Stingray device, the DOJ revealed that it was standard practice to use the devices without explicitly requesting permission in warrants. "When Rigmaiden filed a motion to suppress the Stingray evidence as a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the government responded that this order was a search warrant that authorized the government to use the Stingray. Together with the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU, we filed an amicus brief in support of Rigmaiden, noting that this 'order' wasn't a search warrant because it was directed towards Verizon, made no mention of an IMSI catcher or Stingray and didn't authorize the government — rather than Verizon — to do anything. Plus to the extent it captured loads of information from other people not suspected of criminal activity it was a 'general warrant,' the precise evil the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. ... The emails make clear that U.S. Attorneys in the Northern California were using Stingrays but not informing magistrates of what exactly they were doing. And once the judges got wind of what was actually going on, they were none too pleased:"

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie