Mediaboss Marketing

Best iPhone social networking apps of all time

April 29, 2014 by Phil Hornshaw

Connect to the world through the Internet with this group of 10 awesome social networking apps. These selections bring you closer to friends, family and people all around the world.

With a simple aesthetic and tons of useful features, Tweetbot is one of the best Twitter clients on the iTunes App Store. It brings users all the capabilities they expect from Twitter: your timelines and lists, the ability to quickly post updates and links or images and videos from your device's Camera Roll. You can access multiple Twitter accounts as well, and keep track of all that's trending in the world.

No social networking list could be complete without Facebook, as the app is basically the mobile version of the uber-populous website. The app brings users access to their friends lists and updates, with the ability to look at photos, post statuses and share links, as well as just about anything else. You can do almost everything in the app as you can on Facebook's website, and there's no reason not to keep the social network handy in your pocket.

Another of Facebook's apps, Paper gives users a scaled-back version of its main app by focusing just on the News Feed. You get an elegant interface that brings you all of your friends' updates, shared photos and videos, and comments, and the app allows you to post your own. But it filters out everything else in Facebook you might not need, like birthdays, profiles and group pages and the like. Use Paper just for keeping up with your Facebook friends in the easiest and most visually interesting way possible.

Managing multiple social network feeds can be a pain, but not if youve got HootSuite. The app lets you tie in your networks from Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare and more, and is great if youve got more than one account, multiple pages or other social networking needs. You can quickly see all your feeds and send messages to all of them (or the same message to multiple accounts), as well as set up scheduled updates.

Twitter got its start with super-short status updates and brings that same idea of tiny posts to video with Vine. All Vine's videos are six seconds of less, and users can create and edit their own vines to post to the app or Twitter. Vine is a social network by itself, though, allowing you to search for other users, follow them, and view, like and comment in their videos.

Foursquare is all about telling people where you are and what you're doing. It lets you "check in" at various locations, posting a status update that comes with a note about where you are. You can use Foursquare to find out where your friends are hanging out and to meet up with them, or leave ratings and review of the best things about a place or business. You can even unlock badges and discounts at the places you frequent.

Imagine having a bulletin board filled with pictures, magazine clippings and other things you like. That's Pinterest, only the bulletin board is online and can be seen by other people. You can add stuff from all over the internet to your boards within the service, and the app lets you add to your own board or view those of other users. You can leave comments on their pins and follow them to get updates when they add cool stuff, as well.

Link:
Best iPhone social networking apps of all time

How did a High School kid learn a foreign language not taught in school, make business contacts and land a major job interview in a foreign country escorted there by some of the top people in her field and walk out with a contract in hand? Social networking. How did an Alaskan kid start a business that gathered a large clientele list, enough so she was able to move her business to a worldwide organization? Social Networking. How do business executives and engineers keep in contact with each other and track old contacts down? Social Networking. Special interest groups such as natives of Jackson Hole or church music directors, or Pantera cars or Alumni all have groups in social networking. Instructor: Byron Tomingas. Location: Computer Lab. Free. Computer Class Instructor, Byron Tomingas, 733-2164 ext. 218, btomingas@tclib.org.

See description for cost information.

Read the rest here:
Introduction to Facebook & Social Networking

Should police be allowed to search your smartphone
Argued that smartphones are covered by the fourth amendment, tomorrow the supreme court will hear a pair of cases that will help argue that smartphones and tablets should fall under that category,...

By: KOCO 5 News

Read more:
Should police be allowed to search your smartphone - Video

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Editor's note: Brianne Gorod is appellate counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive law firm and think tank. Gorod is a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and was an attorney-adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. She is one of the authors of her firm's amicus brief in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, two cell phone privacy cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- It won't surprise anyone that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent in a Supreme Court case that came down last week. But it might surprise some people that three members of the court's so-called liberal wing joined him.

Scalia argued that searching the car of Prado Navarette, pulled over on suspicion of drunken driving, violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor agreed.

This seemingly idiosyncratic lineup is a developing bloc in Fourth Amendment cases, and it's one to keep any eye on as the court hears two even bigger such cases Tuesday. In Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the court will consider whether the police may search the contents of an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant. This means that if you get arrested for jaywalking or littering (and in some places, you can be), the police can search your smartphone -- and everything on it.

There should be little doubt about what Scalia will say about these searches. He has become a regular champion of the Fourth Amendments protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures." In Navarette v. California, Scalia disagreed with the court's conclusion that the police could lawfully stop a car after a woman anonymously called 911 and reported that the car had driven her off the road. Scalia wrote that such stops were not the constitutional framers' concept of a "people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

And in Maryland v. King, a case decided last term, Scalia disagreed with the court's conclusion that the police may lawfully take a cheek swab of someone's DNA after he or she has been arrested for a serious offense. He expressed "doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection."

Those proud men adopted the Fourth Amendment in large part to respond to the British use of "general warrants." These warrants were not specific about the people or items to be searched and thus gave the government broad discretion to search people's homes and the personal papers and effects within. The Fourth Amendment was adopted to ensure the American people would not be subject to such broad searches.

As Scalia put it simply in the King case, "suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crime-solving." That's precisely why the police should not be able to search the modern-day equivalent of one's "papers and effects" -- the contents of one's cell phone -- without a warrant.

Fortunately, there's reason to think that Scalia won't be on the losing side of this one. To start, searches of cell phones have the potential to be far more invasive than the searches in Navarette and King. In Navarette, the search was a brief traffic stop. Even the search in King -- a light swabbing of the cheek -- while more physically invasive, does not reveal all of a person's most private communications and the intimate details of one's life the way searches of a smart phone can.

Follow this link:
What Scalia knows about illegal searches

Today the Supreme Courtis hearing two cases on law enforcements ability to search a persons cellphone without a warrant. It is an important decision in a time where a hand-size device can contain troves of personal data, some of which may or may not be pertinent to a case.

The decisions boil down to the Fourth Amendment: What are unreasonable searches and seizures?

The decision could affect a wide swath of the population. The New York Times notes that 12 million people are arrested every year, often for minor offenses, and that about 90 percent of Americans have cellphones.

Currently, the courts allow law enforcement to do warrantless searches when a person is arrested. For example, if someone is pulled over and a cop has probable cause he might check the car. This is often justified as a way to ensure police safety and avoid the destruction of evidence.

In its entirety the Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But what about a cellphone? Can a cop flip through your contacts, or browser history or Dropbox without a warrant? Are those papers or effects, or not?

The two cases being heard are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The first is Riley v. California. In 2009, David L. Riley had an expired car registration, and was pulled over in San Diego. Police also found two loaded guns and text messages that associated him with a gang. A further search of the phone linked him to an attempted murder. He was convicted and received 15 years in prison.

Both the guns and phone were found without a warrant; a California appeals court ruled that the search was like going through a persons wallet or address book and did not require one.

The second case isUnited States v. Wurie.Brima Wurie was arrested in Boston in 2007 on drug and gun charges. Officers searched his flip-phones call log without a warrant. A Boston federal appeals court threw out the cellphone records as evidence. Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote, Today, many Americans store their most personal papers and effects in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person.

Originally posted here:
Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant