or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

Hardly. We disagree. That makes neither of us helpless or naive.
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.
Works great— particularly when the victim dies.
And android, with whatever apps they choose, is still one giant security hole.
We agree on the concept of risk and reward.
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.
your last graph raises an interesting question. Other than that, I can only say that life is about trade offs and compromises. None of us get all we want all the time.If we don't compromise (e.g., your rights end where my nose begins), then society really cannot exist. And, because some can't live by generally accepted rules, we need laws to discourage bad behavior. Those laws, each and every one of them, interfere with someone's rights. Fair or not.So, we have to agree to...
I have expressed my opinion. You chose to insult me for it. The anger in your response was unjustified. You are trying to justify insulting me. That about sums up the conversation. Please don't bother to reply if you don't have anything constructive to say or that is not a personal attack.
No. Are you? Would you be OK with denying the authorities to written communications between conspirators too? If not, just how is that any different than the authorities access what is on a phone?
Yes. You have the right to not incriminate yourself. That right does not extend itself to written records you prepare or maintain, i.e., email, journals, computer records.
New Posts  All Forums: