iPhone flaw - no PIN required(?)

Interesting, so your conclusion is that it is the iPhone infact is the 'cause'?

Mm.

Evidentially then, how would you demonstrate you are not in breach of privacy or directed surveillance requirements? Afterall, the opportunity it might present itself and be suggested the method/treatment infact is being used to avoid legal processes (e.g. no party consent, circumventing digital signatures prior to disclosure and so on) and avoid traceability in doing so?

This isn't so much of a concern in my line of work. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts though.

Interesting, so your conclusion is that it is the iPhone infact is the 'cause'?

Mm.

? )

I am smiling because the last time I saw Mm it had many different definitions Polar

http//www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mm

? )

I am smiling because the last time I saw Mm it had many different definitions Polar

http//www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mm

|

And your thoughts on the privacy/surveillance requirements?

And your thoughts on the privacy/surveillance requirements?

It largely depends upon your inhouse practices and procedures and how ambiguously they are written such that staff do not get a straight direction (yes/no, you can/you can not, cause/effect) when reading them.