...Learn your rights people. I honestly applaud Apple for this. I just wish they would do the same for information in iCloud. Maybe when a user implements two factor authentication it also encrypts the users data using an asymmetrical key. That would be cool with me.
I think there are provisions in the Patriot Act that compel a company to divulge any information on servers that may be accessed by the public. They consider the Internet 'open season' for data, except when it comes to their own data, naturally. And this disrespect for privacy by our own government has led to developments in alternative means of computer connection, such as mesh networks and private Internet-like networks limited to other countries.
No different to the subject refusing to divulge a hidden location, or the key to any encrypted content anywhere. It's not Apple's legal responsibility to ensure access to secure devices that they manufacture, any more than it is the responsibility of the author of a crypto method to provide a backdoor access mechanism.
When Apple is providing the security tools that are used by criminals they must comply with the instructions of a warrant to unlock private areas.
That may very well be true IF they have the means, but if not, then no. The point is that there is currently no law, at least in the US, that requires them to have the means. Just a desire by certain agencies that they should.
Irrelevant in the sense that only US citizens are affected by US laws. Our constitutional protections do not extend to other countries or their citizens.
Irrelevant in the sense that only US citizens are affected by US laws. Our constitutional protections do not extend to other countries or their citizens.
That's not true. A foreigner in the USA is subject to US laws and its constitution.
If you are interested, you may want to read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which mentions how the Judiciary has power over cases involving controversies between US states and foreign nations and their citizens:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
You clearly do not understand that the US Constitution was created between the various States. The Federal government exists because of the agreement between the States and because the citizens allow it, the States do not exist because of the Federal government.
Only protected while in the USA, not when they are in other countries.
A US citizen does not lose their rights guaranteed by the US Constitution while they are outside the US, however a US citizen would be subject to the laws of that nation.
If you are interested, you may want to read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which mentions how the Judiciary has power over cases involving controversies between US states and foreign nations and their citizens:
You clearly do not understand that the US Constitution was created between the various States. The Federal government exists because of the agreement between the States and because the citizens allow it, the States do not exist because of the Federal government.
This references US embassy workers in a foreign country, not US citizens in a foreign country outside of the US Embassy. I assure you, if you are in Britain committing British crimes and do not have diplomatic immunity you will be subject to the British courts and its Constitution.
This references US embassy workers in a foreign country, not US citizens in a foreign country outside of the US Embassy. I assure you, if you are in Britain committing British crimes and do not have diplomatic immunity you will be subject to the British courts and its Constitution.
I've never said anything of the sort suggesting what you wrote. Pay closer attention, Yves.
Ah look, the governments posse is speaking out. Is this what an FBI's temper tantrum looks like? Ah, and without disappointing the government nipple-suckers, they pull the children card. I swear government agencies operate from a playbook because this song and dance never changes.
I've never said anything of the sort suggesting what you wrote. Pay closer attention, Yves.
Ok. However you keep saying that the U.S. constitution overrules that of another nation when a US citizen is in that nation. It's blatantly false. Does that US citizen have the right to bear arms in China or any country that does not give that right to its own citizens? If you still say yes than all I can say is you're missing some education in your life.
Ok. However you keep saying that the U.S. constitution overrules that of another nation when a US citizen is in that nation. It's blatantly false. Does that US citizen have the right to bear arms in China or any country that does not give that right to its own citizens? If you still say yes than all I can say is you're missing some education in your life.
Comments
...Learn your rights people. I honestly applaud Apple for this. I just wish they would do the same for information in iCloud. Maybe when a user implements two factor authentication it also encrypts the users data using an asymmetrical key. That would be cool with me.
I think there are provisions in the Patriot Act that compel a company to divulge any information on servers that may be accessed by the public. They consider the Internet 'open season' for data, except when it comes to their own data, naturally. And this disrespect for privacy by our own government has led to developments in alternative means of computer connection, such as mesh networks and private Internet-like networks limited to other countries.
That may very well be true IF they have the means, but if not, then no. The point is that there is currently no law, at least in the US, that requires them to have the means. Just a desire by certain agencies that they should.
Is that your best defence?
Answer the question. A non-US citizen's opinion of US laws is irrelevant, just as a non-Canadian's opinion regarding Canadian laws is irrelevant.
Not necessarily irrelevant, but maybe misguided.
Those who think they're above the law have no business in government.
Not necessarily irrelevant, but maybe misguided.
Irrelevant in the sense that only US citizens are affected by US laws. Our constitutional protections do not extend to other countries or their citizens.
Is this the same FBI that practices 'parallel reconstruction'?
Those who think they're above the law have no business in government.
Parallel construction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
A good argument for legalization and decriminalization of all so-called illicit substances (none of which I have ever used, incidentally).
That's not true. A foreigner in the USA is subject to US laws and its constitution.
US citizens are protected by the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Have you ever read the US Constitution?
Here you go: http://constitutionus.com
If you are interested, you may want to read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which mentions how the Judiciary has power over cases involving controversies between US states and foreign nations and their citizens:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
You clearly do not understand that the US Constitution was created between the various States. The Federal government exists because of the agreement between the States and because the citizens allow it, the States do not exist because of the Federal government.
US citizens are protected by the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Have you ever read the US Constitution?
Here you go: http://constitutionus.com
Only protected while in the USA, not when they are in other countries.
Where are you going with this?
Only protected while in the USA, not when they are in other countries.
A US citizen does not lose their rights guaranteed by the US Constitution while they are outside the US, however a US citizen would be subject to the laws of that nation.
You seem to be flailing.
This references US embassy workers in a foreign country, not US citizens in a foreign country outside of the US Embassy. I assure you, if you are in Britain committing British crimes and do not have diplomatic immunity you will be subject to the British courts and its Constitution.
I've never said anything of the sort suggesting what you wrote. Pay closer attention, Yves.
Ah look, the governments posse is speaking out. Is this what an FBI's temper tantrum looks like? Ah, and without disappointing the government nipple-suckers, they pull the children card. I swear government agencies operate from a playbook because this song and dance never changes.
Ok. However you keep saying that the U.S. constitution overrules that of another nation when a US citizen is in that nation. It's blatantly false. Does that US citizen have the right to bear arms in China or any country that does not give that right to its own citizens? If you still say yes than all I can say is you're missing some education in your life.
Never said that either. Reread what I've written.