Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #25 – 2016-03-06, 06:47:54 The key quote from Adi Shamir: "Even though Apple has helped in countless cases," Shamir continued, "they decided not to comply this time. My advice is that they comply this time and wait for a better test case to fight where the case is not so clearly in favor of the FBI."Even without checking it up, I also assume Apple has already "helped in countless cases", so playing headstrong this time is mainly just for show.Quote from: http://bgr.com/2016/03/03/san-berdardino-iphone-hack-godfather-of-encryption-apple-fbi-iphone/If the FBI gets its way, Apple argues that there’s nothing to stop the FBI or other law enforcement agencies from requesting that Apple develop all sorts of specialized software designed for particular surveillance purposes.This would be a fair point if the companies themselves didn't do surveillance on their customers on their own. So, specialized software for particular surveillance purposes is not the issue. From customers' point of view, it's a problem when companies share customers' sensitive data with the authorities, but this has been going on all along too. What could possibly be the problem from Apple's point of view? Maybe that they are being requested to do some work to unencrypt the phone. After all, it is truly an effort to break encryption, if it's really encryption. So, maybe Apple doesn't feel adequately compensated for an employment task. Which, again, happens to ordinary people every day...
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #26 – 2016-03-06, 07:12:19 ersi, you grew up in a "surveillance" state; so, you don't know any better.What the FBI has asked Apple to do is onerous. You wouldn't know it: You've never had the kind of freedom we have. (Get back to me in a hundred years, or more… ) What the FBI asks is that an American company become a subsidiary of the intelligence and law enforcement arms of the federal government.Of course, you see no problem with that!We -and, certainly, I- do… Must I explain why, to you?——————————————————————————————Sorry, but the stuff keeps coming…QuoteCyrus Farivar reports at ArsTechnica that Congressman David Jolly has introduced the "No Taxpayer Support for Apple Act," a bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," said Jolly, who announced in 2015 that he's running for Senate, joining the crowded GOP primary field to replace Sen. Marco Rubio. "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today." Jolly's bill echoes a call from Donald Trump last month to boycott Apple until it agrees to assist the FBI. Not to fear, GovTrack gives Jolly's bill a 1% chance of being enacted.(source)Does anyone else see something wrong with this "reasoning"…?But if the Dems win big in the upcoming election, that 1% becomes 90%… That's how they do business.I suppose it's too much to ask, that police do police work…We've seen, many times, good police work come to nought — because of procedural problems. Most often, such are based upon rights granted by the U.S. constitution; and have been upheld by the Supreme Court.We'd want to keep such precedent, wouldn't we?Likewise, we'd want to preclude the precedent the FBI (and other LEAs) seek now: They go far beyond what the constitution prescribes; and much beyond what the constitution permits.Let the next president argue this case… Last Edit: 2016-03-06, 08:33:19 by OakdaleFTL
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #27 – 2016-03-06, 08:27:08 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 07:12:19What the FBI has asked Apple to do is onerous. Have I denied this? Have I justified the FBI somehow?Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 07:12:19You wouldn't know it: You've never had the kind of freedom we have. Having never lost a freedom (at least, in your opinion you haven't), you don't know the true nature or value of it.Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 07:12:19What the FBI asks is that an American company become a subsidiary of the intelligence and law enforcement arms of the federal government.Of course, you see no problem with that!Of course, you refuse to see all the cases when Apple already happily served as a subsidiary of the government. And you see no problem with your refusal to see that, even though the article you found informs you about it.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #28 – 2016-03-06, 08:41:02 ersi, I know my county's history — and that of a few others.You think I need to suffer under a totalitarian government before I can appreciate the freedoms I've enjoyed? You need to be a girl trapped in a male body before you can understand what a lesbian "feels"… And even then you won't. You're playing your usual word-games.You try not to say anything, and you're skilled at that. You usually succeed.But sometimes you can't help yourself: You want to say something!But you don't really have anything to say… Do you?
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #29 – 2016-03-07, 02:06:37 You may read a lot but that does not mean a superior stance is automatic at all and that last insertion was to sum it up concisely...guff!
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #30 – 2016-03-08, 05:12:06 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-06, 18:06:37You may read a lot but that does not mean a superior stance is automatic at all […}Of course not! I'd expect anyone to consider my arguments! Well, any one who has the intellectual capacity… You get a free pass, RJ!
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #31 – 2016-03-08, 06:34:49 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-08, 05:12:06I'd expect anyone to consider my arguments! Well, any one who has the intellectual capacity… But your argument is the same old "Americans have freedom, because the constitution says...!" It actually requires a suspension of the intellectual capacity to consider such an argument.You are saying that this is the watershed case because it's "onerous" of the FBI to ask Apple what they asked, and that it would be a problem if an American company became a subsidiary of the federal government. This argument would be worthy of consideration, if "onerous" were a legal or moral concept and if other American software companies were somehow not subsidiaries of the federal government, a la http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #32 – 2016-03-09, 02:16:41 Unfortunately the idea that the peoplemhave freedom has been a ling time and very clever propaganda exercise and the constitution has made little difference to the facts of life. Too many secret government snooping organisations access to the private affairs of people and so on. Many people who basically value their country are equally aware that there are very great flaws in the principles meant to be not just secured but practiced. The recent FBI stance is part of the very clever government control and much of what is contradictory to basic constitution matters, rights and freedoms. A decent people but conned terribly.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #33 – 2016-03-09, 08:56:19 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 07:12:19Does anyone else see something wrong with this "reasoning"…?But if the Dems win big in the upcoming election, that 1% becomes 90%… That's how they do business.You do know that Jolly is a Republican, right? From a link in the Slashdot article , it seems that it's the Republicans demanding Apple unlock the phone, including the notorious Donald Trump. What decade was it that Republicans even remotely stood for freedom? It must have been damn near half a century ago when they understood that or technology (given the problem that Apple complying with the request would create serious security issues for iPhones and government agencies moved onto them from Blackberries.) I understand. Perhaps at one time the GOP was the party of small government; but now they're the party of surveillance, restricting people's constitutional rights, the religious right, seemingly complete ignorance of technology, and the military industrial complex -which old-school Republican Eisenhower warned us about. In other words, they are the party of big government as those you call "liberal" are opposed to all those things. If you're truly opposed to how you hallucinate that Democrats do business, do some soul-searching, research and switch sides. But you won't. You don't have the balls.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #34 – 2016-03-09, 09:31:18 Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-09, 08:56:19From a link in the Slashdot article , it seems that it's the Republicans demanding Apple unlock the phone, including the notorious Donald Trump. What decade was it that Republicans even remotely stood for freedom? It must have been damn near half a century ago when they understood that or technology (given the problem that Apple complying with the request would create serious security issues for iPhones and government agencies moved onto them from Blackberries.) I understand. Perhaps at one time the GOP was the party of small government; but now they're the party of surveillance, restricting people's constitutional rights,...From this side of the pond it looks like both of the US parties are in perfect agreement on the issues of surveillance, random kidnapping and torture of people. President W. ushered in the century with wars and by setting up the Patriot Act. President O. promised change, but he hasn't even closed Guantanamo, which was the single specific promise that he actually gave, and he hasn't revoked any of W's laws, regulations, and policies.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #35 – 2016-03-09, 10:35:11 Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-09, 00:56:19it seems that it's the Republicans demanding Apple unlock the phoneAnd not the Democrats? Polling says… The news says…I say: The FBI deliberately asked for a pass-word reset, to maneuver into this power grab. (I know, it sounds conspiratorial — but there's no explanation, other than gross incompetence, that explains it; and the FBI is seldom grossly incompetent. This had to be a policy decision…This is not a party issue, for me. I know what the FBI is asking Apple to do, and its ramifications… And I reject the idea that the loss of freedom entailed if they succeed is worth the meager advantage it would gain law enforcement in this case.Of course, that's not what this is really about — from the government's perspective, is it? But for you, Sang, everything is political… Isn't it? Good guys (Democrats) vs. bad guys (Republicans)!BTW: I think Ted Cruz is wrong on this issue… Would you like me to tell him so? My politics are something you don't have the capacity to understand: There are principles involved. You -it seems to me- only to have desires…@ersi: Maybe Putin will be nice, take over your country again; and you can return to being a propagandist… But maybe not.You may have lost your touch. (How's life with a modicum of freedom treating you? ) Last Edit: 2016-03-09, 11:28:42 by OakdaleFTL
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #36 – 2016-03-10, 05:33:49 Obama was a waste of time. He has used more drones and done more killings even going over the borders elsewhere to do it than the criticise Bush. And to still have that base in Cuba is disgusting and ridiculous when the US is not wanted on it's territory. The US has the temerity of having ships around those Chinese Sea islands trying to lean on China for being un-principled and wrong when itself should get the hell out of Cuba. Why oh why have all those security departments at all and the numbers far exceed the 3rd Reich and USSR lot. So why would a 'democracy need so many? One never gets an answer to that. Apple and the other companies coming to support are so right because giving in just gives these secret clowns even more control over the basic rights of the individual.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #37 – 2016-03-11, 00:22:29 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-09, 21:33:49Obama was a waste of time.Never had a PM you didn't like…? He was legitimately elected, twice. "We done our crime, and served our time… " Now, we expect something different…In the mean-time, the FBI doesn't want to serve search warrants, it wants to conscript companies -hell, industries!- to do their bidding.Who -here- thinks this is a good thing? (Sang, ask our fellow posters here: What good comes from the precedent of letting law enforcement dictate what private companies must create, to facilitate the aims of —or, alternatively, "correct" the mistakes of— incompetent agents?)Does the doctrine of Fruit of the poisonous tree no longer have meaning? Shall we scrap the 4th Amendment, as "inconvenient"…?The FBI (and the court) is not asking Apple to turn over what it has. It is demanding that Apple become a vassal, to do the bidding of the FBI (and the court) as if it were a bondsman — and create and deploy what the FBI says it requires!Didn't the 13th Amendment outlaw slavery? QuoteSection 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.Some may prefer the "involuntary servitude" trope… But I'll bet they'd prefer not to: How would they answer the "except" clause's obvious question? In short: This is not a slippery slope. It's a ski jump!
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #38 – 2016-03-12, 14:41:17 For goodness sake house hermit. The power of a Prime Minister compared topa President is so different. All that rubbish about "yes we can" (groan). Obama time after time mumbled and wandered about before decisions and he sent more drones out than even the Republican man before him killing more. Ignoring the sovereignty of Cuba with an unwanted base for America's protection (another groan). So damn ignorant and un-democratic. But then you have been propagated into all these security organisations for what? For a change try and answer the questions that contradict the claimed principles so this tim - why so many secret organisations as well as getting away with too much.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #39 – 2016-03-13, 06:02:36 Howie, you seldom have any idea what you're talking about — but you're so inarticulate that few notice! In the meantime, the government has responded to Apple's Motion to Vacate… (See here, if you'd like to read it. I haven't finished it yet…) See one of the first reactions to it here.…Given the over-reach of the All Writs Act as the FBI has tried to apply it, Congress might want to consider legislation! (I do see a similarity with the Writs of Assistance cases…)
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #40 – 2016-03-13, 14:57:38 Usual standard tripe from a hermit Yank. Why does your country need so many secret organisations causing so much bother? Try and answer the basic that you lot are a bunch of nervous twits hence all those government secret organisations exist. In recent times you added yet another one with that Homeland Security Gestapo. Try answering a direct question...why so many?
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #41 – 2016-03-14, 00:54:28 The art of bureaucracy, Howie, which we learned from Britain…!
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #42 – 2016-03-14, 03:40:27 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-12, 14:41:17Ignoring the sovereignty of Cuba with an unwanted base for America's protection (another groan).How many countries has the UK ignored the sovereignty of again? There are so many it's hard to keep track of
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #43 – 2016-03-14, 11:25:22 The usual utter guff from an restricted brain slot. We are living we are told in a modern environment yet who is the country that intimidates countries time after time since WW2 but America. It has more military bases than anyone and still doing so. One never gets a proper answer to the modern USA situation and instead we get surfed into a past age and the truth totally ignored. Not once do you ever get a proper answer to any charge on the present. The biggest danger today is the country ruled by corporates and spy agencies and thinks it has the right to tell the world how it should be run when it cannot even deal with it's own internal farce. Even my simple question on why the USA needs so many spy agencies running into double figures cannot be answered intelligently and the usual method here is to do a misdirection. This is a typical situation when the obvious cannot be refuted and part of the way people are brought up with flags everywhere, sel-praising whilxt niggling countries and acting imperialistic. So come on smart moths explain a perfectly interesting answer to why so many agencies that outdo dictatorships. Or are you lot just a bunch of kindergarten mind slots.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #44 – 2016-03-14, 14:26:34 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-14, 11:25:22Or are you lot just a bunch of kindergarten mind slots.And you're so intelligent that you post the same thing in every thread, regardless of the topic. Is that because your brain isn't capable of more advanced "reasoning" than America=bad? Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to enjoy my new Mac Why is it that your country can't invent something like this, if we're the "kindergarten mind slots?" Where is the British Google,Apple,Microsoft? Maybe you couldn't come up with them because there are too many of you doing things like still celebrating bringing a genderqueer Dutch prince to the throne.
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #45 – 2016-03-14, 15:53:44 Apple as a company does not care deeply for privacy. Some believe that they do, but I think they are mistaken. They do care, and should care, about security. They have opened their door for law enforcement before, and will do again, but this is more akin to picking the lock to a door they have installed.There are companies that care about privacy, but it has been the companies that care less that have grown huge. I think it is reasonable that people who have committed a crime have forfeited their privacy for any activities done in the process of that crime, but not for activities unrelated to it.We have lost privacy in the last couple decades. I don't think it would be easy to regain it. What we do, what we say, increasingly what we think, is exposed to interested parties. This issue wouldn't directly affect it (though less security also means less privacy from anyone able to abuse that flaw).
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #46 – 2016-03-15, 18:44:31 You neatly fall into my straightforward view raccoon. Instead of answering a direct point you lot fall back on doing a bodyswerve then go into the slagging off mode. I will remind you of the question....Why does a 'democracy' need so many spy agencies that outnumber those in dictatorships?
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #47 – 2016-03-15, 18:54:34 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-15, 10:44:31Why does a 'democracy' need so many spy agencies that outnumber those in dictatorships?Why is that the question, here?Please explain it again, RJ…
Re: Apple vs. the FBI Reply #49 – 2016-03-16, 18:31:10 Why are you being so dashed silly Oakdale. The FBI is amongst the double figure list of spying agencies in your country so answer the question. All you are doing is doing the usual body-swerving. Why have so many? Simple but you are unable to even deal with straightforward questions.
Topic: Apple vs. the FBI (Read 20048 times)
