If someone implies that there is proof that the perpetrator picked up the tape when there is no such evidence, are they right?

By that logic we should all be very angry at our TTY drivers.

I'm not even sure what I should say to explain the difference here. It should be obvious...

You're implying the difference is intent. I'm saying, their intent isn't known. Their own statement is that they don't want the raw characters, just the stats.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of pieces of code strewn throughout your system that get access to similar bits of sensitive data. For instance, every BSD system has a BPF device and driver that exists solely to tap your network traffic. Luckily, nobody sells a BPF-for-Android product.

I'm not saying that this is a clinching argument. I'm simply making a point that is germane to the discussion. Distilled, it is: "just because a piece of systems code deals with your private information does not make a violation of your privacy; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't".

Yeah, but key logging? What could you possibly do with that data?

Besides, the BPF driver in every BSD system is probably open-source and could be reviewed for intent if in doubt. It's not easy, not everybody can do it, but it is possible.

However, you cannot do that for CarrierIQ. Even if such logs aren't getting sent, you don't know that they haven't installed some kind of mechanism to trigger such an upload on demand.

It's almost 2012 and "open source" doesn't matter that much anymore when it comes to stuff like this: there's enough incentive and basic competence now that someone's going to reverse engineer CarrierIQ, if only to get themselves some press.

There is a hell of a lot more wrong with your analogy than a mere "difference in intent".

I'm interested in why you think that. I wrote the comment in good faith. I'm asking you to clarify also in good faith.

Having reviewed your other comments in this discussion, I must say that I do not see the point in continuing this.

How did the perpetrator plant such a device in the first place? Did he have permission? If not, perhaps a different crime was committed.

To use a situation analogous to the situation with CarrierIQ, he did not have permission and you never even knew he was there or that the camera was there. However, the camera is digital, it is connected to your power outlet with a battery-backed UPS, and it has an active wireless modem attached to it.

Maybe he did send data, maybe he didn't. But he's also sent you a CnD notice and threatening to sue you if you tell anyone.

I am a bit lost at all the down votes but he was recording data that breaches privacy acts. If he did send such data without permission it is a rootkit and can be unlawful (data protection act, uk). Because everyone has collectively found out about this at the same time a CnD would not work.