Last week we learned that a phone loaded with prototype Microsoft software was pickpocketed from the coat of an unnamed executive at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
The phone in question was handed to Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo for testing purposes, who then gave the phone to someone else. That someone else 'lost track' of the phone at a party later that evening, meaning that an early version of Windows Mobile 6.5 is now somewhere in the wild.
Telstra did confirm that the phone was stolen, but Microsoft did not offer any comment on the matter. APC sources a “senior Microsoft staffer,” who spoke under terms of anonymity that Microsoft remotely wiped all the data from the device, including the flashy new user interface. The underlying operating system itself, however, remains on the stolen device, according to the story.
While there is a level of paranoia that Microsoft could reach out to any Windows Mobile 6.5 phone to wipe its data, the feature itself of remote wiping is one that is highly attractive for corporate applications. Businesses that store and transmit sensitive information using handheld devices demand a way to wipe the data from a given device should it be lost or stolen.
It seems that the stolen Windows Mobile 6.5 handset was, if nothing else, an early proof of remote wiping in action.
Is anyone paid to proofread this?
Windows Mobile 5 devices like the Palm 700wx or the Motorola Q can also be remotely wiped if they have been setup to use mobile exchange. Where I work... phones belonging to people who would have confidential information in their e-mail, have lost / misplaced their phones, and remotely wiping them as a security measure is common practice.
The best place to hide something is public. So the only problem really was the guy losing it - he ended up proving himself as a human
What about trolls that complain about other trolls?
Sometimes those grammar errors will lead to an incorrect interpretation of the material, and in those cases correcting them are essential. I don't care to read those comments bickering about a missing punctuation or such, but those where typos change the meaning are crucial to get underscored so chris or someone can fix them.
I think you meant to type "grammar Nazis." It's plural rather than possessive, and the N should be capitalized.
Uh, no actually. If you'd taken a second and a half to click the link instead of just blindly commenting you'd see the site is called APC. I think they typed what they meant.
I however am not yet tired of seeing writers getting poked at for valid spelling and grammar mistakes. Its a professional media group for crying out loud, they need to hear about it when it happens. Maybe they should put a button on each page for flagging that stuff so we can keep it out of the comments.
Yeah, I think this was done on purpose now that this has been noted.
That's probably why Obama gets to keep his Blackberry
What is the main motive / reason to stole a gadget? Usually money. The thief will sell the stolen gadget to market and get money. If we can make stolen device can't be sell, than the thief will be extrimly smaller.
Exactly... with a Blackberry all communication to and from the device is encrypted, they can enforce a policy requiring the user to have a password and enforce a timeout on the device, and even push down a policy that will make the phone wipe itself after a specified number of consecutive failed password attempts.
What is the main motive / reason to stole a gadget? Usually money. The thief will sell the stolen gadget to market and get money. If we can make stolen device can't be sell, than the thief will be extrimly smaller." - liemfukliang
Damn... Are you retarded? That made absolutely NO sense at all.
In essence he sais that, if owners can remotely destroy the functionality of a device once it's been stolen, chances are people won't bother stealing those devices in the first place.
ofc it won't work, as the thieves will just get smarter and learn how to trick the system. They are still stealing the expensive cars with tracking systems in them after all too.