Today a court can compel someone to provide access to the data on their phone the same way they can compel you to provide access to anything. Anyone choosing not to provide access would be in jail until they did.
exactly. if you know the combination to the lock on your secret kidnapper room, the court can compel you to give it up, just as they can currently compel you to unlock your phone. in either case if you refuse you sit in jail until you follow the court's instruction.
thus we dont need any new backdoors -- the court already has the power to compel you to unlock your phone or sit in jail for life.
exactly. if you know the combination to the lock on your secret kidnapper room, the court can compel you to give it up, just as they can currently compel you to unlock your phone. in either case if you refuse you sit in jail until you follow the court's instruction.
thus we dont need any new backdoors -- the court already has the power to compel you to unlock your phone or sit in jail for life.
I understand your points. I will only comment and say that there is a reason for secret courts, whether we like it or not. One cannot fight terrorists or criminal condpiracies when one has to broadcast what one is doing. Point: if an informant has to go to open court, they will be ineffective in the future and soon dead.
that doesnt jibe -- we have open criminal courts w/ informants and figured out ways to deal with it.
Again, it's not a matter of paranoia or calculation, it's a matter of human nature and the fact that each one of us is self-interested.
Here we go with the Hobbesian social philosophy again. Is that provable via DNA or other genetic evidence?
But anyways, my original point is about whether government officials have some "evil master plan" to steal rights away from individuals in an attempt to secure more power for themselves (as the conspiracy theorists maintain). When, in reality, I feel most are simply trying to secure their position by pandering to the reactionary will of voters and financial backers with very little knowledge or vision of anything they're making decisions about.
Quote:
This simple fact was acknowledged in the creation of the US Constitution by the framers. They had the expanse of recorded human history as their guide. People today have become deluded with notions that because they can get "free stuff" from government their interests are taken care of, when in fact the opposite is true.
Now we're going on a tangent. My only comment to this point is that, there's a reason why humans emerged from their individual caves and formed groups. We tend to accomplish far more as a species united than divided.
the reward of unlocking a bricked iphone that is the sole piece of timely evidence needed to crack a caper is so unlikely it fails to overcome the risk of abusing the power against more & more citizens. history has proven that.
what more is there to say? if you dont believe that youre either helplessly naieve, or biased LE.
that doesnt jibe -- we have open criminal courts w/ informants and figured out ways to deal with it.
Generally speaking...those courts are trial courts where someone is accused and bring tried for a crime. Not one where one is trying to access information before an arrest.
the reward of unlocking a bricked iphone that is the sole piece of timely evidence needed to crack a caper is so unlikely it fails to overcome the risk of abusing the power against more & more citizens. history has proven that.
what more is there to say? if you dont believe that youre either helplessly naieve, or biased LE.
Hardly. We disagree. That makes neither of us helpless or naive.
What most of you seem to support is that, if the Tsarnaev brothers had communicated only on iPhones, and that was the key physical evidence of their conspiracy, they should go free. Is that really what you want?
You're looking at this all wrong. See, bad guys already know how to use encryption, as Tim Cook said. That's a reality the FBI has to deal with, so why shouldn't the public have access to the same tools to protect their privacy?
Take the case against Ross Ulbricht, the person convicted of running an online drug bazaar from his Samsung laptop. The Feds grabbed his laptop while it was open, literally while he was using it. Had he closed the laptop screen, his data would have been locked and his hard drive encrypted, so as to make any evidence retrieval impossible. As it turns out, the Feds knew what they were doing, and the laptop was key to a criminal conviction in this case.
Like I said, bad guys who want to hide evidence already use encryption, so Apple is not the reason the FBI can't do their job. Scaremongers think that persuading the public to surrender access to privacy technology will make us safer, or convict terrorists. But it won't.
There is a difference between having a phone with encrypted data and an encrypted phone. I want the first. Not the second.
There is exactly NO difference because phones cannot be encrypted only data can be.
I have been skipping back through your comments. As others are pointing out, you are not making any sense.
Do you want to make it illegal for people to encrypt their data and not share their keys? Good luck enforcing the unenforceable. So either suggest something workable or just accept that governing is going to be hard because it is supposed to be hard. When it is easy, citizens lose their freedom very quickly. As our Constitution authors took pains to make clear, domestic government is a greater threat to liberty than any external or internal threat.
No. I said data on the phone should be accessible. There is a difference between accessible and understandable.
It is physically impossible to make data on a phone inaccessible! Its called Flash RAM. Anyone with technical skills and resources can get to the 1's and 0's in a phone.
The DA isn't worried about getting access to the 1's and 0's. He has that already and it won't do him any good. He wants to have a backdoor to decrypt the data. What else could you possibly think he wants?
"Apple has created a phone that is dark... That's going to be the terrorists' communication device of choice."
It's not called "dark". It's called Space Gray, and it will obviously be the terrorist choice, because the phone Apple has created is freakin' awesome! Why wouldn't they want to have the coolest and best mobile phone on the planet? Duh.
All kidding aside, and reading the conversation here, I will add the following quotes:
Quote:
"If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong, like our predecessors, into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are to be employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents." - Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father of the U.S.
Quote:
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." -James Madison, Father of the Constitution of the U.S.
Quote:
"Why, of course the people don't want war...but, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, NAZI commander of the German Air Force
Quote:
If you declare a punishment for a crime, then you accept said punishment should you be found guilty of that crime, whether or not you committed it. - Rousseau
Quote:
"We're all guilty of a crime, the moment the government decides we are." - Franco Esteve
Quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
So no. No one's touching or entering my backdoor, thanks.
You're looking at this all wrong. See, bad guys already know how to use encryption, as Tim Cook said. That's a reality the FBI has to deal with, so why shouldn't the public have access to the same tools to protect their privacy?
Take the case against Ross Ulbricht, the person convicted of running an online drug bazaar from his Samsung laptop. The Feds grabbed his laptop while it was open, literally while he was using it. Had he closed the laptop screen, his data would have been locked and his hard drive encrypted, so as to make any evidence retrieval impossible. As it turns out, the Feds knew what they were doing, and the laptop was key to a criminal conviction in this case.
Like I said, bad guys who want to hide evidence already use encryption, so Apple is not the reason the FBI can't do their job. Scaremongers think that persuading the public to surrender access to privacy technology will make us safer, or convict terrorists. But it won't.
Uh. No. I have a perspective different from yours. Doesn't make you right, me wrong or even me right and you wrong. There is a middle ground.
As for the example...one example does not a universe make.
Comments
exactly. if you know the combination to the lock on your secret kidnapper room, the court can compel you to give it up, just as they can currently compel you to unlock your phone. in either case if you refuse you sit in jail until you follow the court's instruction.
thus we dont need any new backdoors -- the court already has the power to compel you to unlock your phone or sit in jail for life.
that doesnt jibe -- we have open criminal courts w/ informants and figured out ways to deal with it.
Again, it's not a matter of paranoia or calculation, it's a matter of human nature and the fact that each one of us is self-interested.
Here we go with the Hobbesian social philosophy again. Is that provable via DNA or other genetic evidence?
But anyways, my original point is about whether government officials have some "evil master plan" to steal rights away from individuals in an attempt to secure more power for themselves (as the conspiracy theorists maintain). When, in reality, I feel most are simply trying to secure their position by pandering to the reactionary will of voters and financial backers with very little knowledge or vision of anything they're making decisions about.
Now we're going on a tangent. My only comment to this point is that, there's a reason why humans emerged from their individual caves and formed groups. We tend to accomplish far more as a species united than divided.
the reward of unlocking a bricked iphone that is the sole piece of timely evidence needed to crack a caper is so unlikely it fails to overcome the risk of abusing the power against more & more citizens. history has proven that.
what more is there to say? if you dont believe that youre either helplessly naieve, or biased LE.
i doubt it happens very often. certainly not frequently enough to justify giving the govt a backdoor to every single american's phone.
death happens.
You're looking at this all wrong. See, bad guys already know how to use encryption, as Tim Cook said. That's a reality the FBI has to deal with, so why shouldn't the public have access to the same tools to protect their privacy?
Take the case against Ross Ulbricht, the person convicted of running an online drug bazaar from his Samsung laptop. The Feds grabbed his laptop while it was open, literally while he was using it. Had he closed the laptop screen, his data would have been locked and his hard drive encrypted, so as to make any evidence retrieval impossible. As it turns out, the Feds knew what they were doing, and the laptop was key to a criminal conviction in this case.
Like I said, bad guys who want to hide evidence already use encryption, so Apple is not the reason the FBI can't do their job. Scaremongers think that persuading the public to surrender access to privacy technology will make us safer, or convict terrorists. But it won't.
Fear drives us.
But I fear that ego-centric asshole more than terrorists.
How popular became the word terrorist after 2011?
It seems that every one who wants to draw attention to any issue, use the word.
And he is just using this as marketing tools to promote his agenda.
How many people were killed by the terrorist with an iPhone (information passed through the iPhone)?
How many people were killed by the terrorist with AK47?
There is a difference between having a phone with encrypted data and an encrypted phone. I want the first. Not the second.
There is exactly NO difference because phones cannot be encrypted only data can be.
I have been skipping back through your comments. As others are pointing out, you are not making any sense.
Do you want to make it illegal for people to encrypt their data and not share their keys? Good luck enforcing the unenforceable. So either suggest something workable or just accept that governing is going to be hard because it is supposed to be hard. When it is easy, citizens lose their freedom very quickly. As our Constitution authors took pains to make clear, domestic government is a greater threat to liberty than any external or internal threat.
No. I said data on the phone should be accessible. There is a difference between accessible and understandable.
It is physically impossible to make data on a phone inaccessible! Its called Flash RAM. Anyone with technical skills and resources can get to the 1's and 0's in a phone.
The DA isn't worried about getting access to the 1's and 0's. He has that already and it won't do him any good. He wants to have a backdoor to decrypt the data. What else could you possibly think he wants?
It's not called "dark". It's called Space Gray, and it will obviously be the terrorist choice, because the phone Apple has created is freakin' awesome! Why wouldn't they want to have the coolest and best mobile phone on the planet? Duh.
All kidding aside, and reading the conversation here, I will add the following quotes:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
So no. No one's touching or entering my backdoor, thanks.
Just pondering...
So that's about as bogus an "argument" as it gets.
Hey wait isn't this the same people who were "demanding" companies such as Apple provide their users with a guaranteed kill switch?
#MakeUpYourMind
As for the example...one example does not a universe make.