The question they're really asking us, is how much are you willing to sacrifice for freedom? The answer - Americans have already demonstrated that we're willing to die for our freedom.
Yes, this. As a nation, many people have sacrificed their lives for freedom, and one very important aspect of freedom is the freedom of privacy. Freedom from "unreasonable search and seizure". But most people's lackadaisical attitudes have made this moot for nearly everything except physical goods.
<br>
Me doing what's right will have a positive effect on my child - he won't have to deal with a world where the government is monitoring, logging, and crawling through his conversations from the last 20 years with the touch of a button.
If you (and your child) use existing spyware like facebook, gmail (and many others), then those conversations will most certainly be available at the touch of a button 20 years from now. As a society, we have <i>already</i> been slowly throwing away our freedom of privacy over the past decade or so by using all manner of spyware like this. If people here think there's a difference between having commercial organizations monitor, store and analyze all your movements, purchases, likes and dislikes, social contacts, conversations, etc., and governments doing the same thing, then I'm not sure what to say.
Clearly if this data exists, then it is available to not just the companies that gather it, but to our government as well. Some companies do a better job of <i>attempting</i> to protect it, but at the end of the day, any U.S. company can be compelled to give up customer data, and in most cases they aren't allowed to even talk about specifics, only large-scale aggregated numbers. Not only can <i>our</i> government access this data, but other countries, criminals networks, etc., all want this data, and no security mechanisms are perfect. The centralization of this kind of data makes it an enormous target for all kinds of organizations. Even google has been hacked, both by Chinese interests and by our own government.
Most people have <i>already</i> given their lives over to insane amounts of personal tracking -- facebook, google, skype, Apple, grocery stores, credit/debit cards, even texting. Pretty much all <i>centralized</i> digital communication is tracked, attached to individuals, and much of it sold in back channels to data brokers. Above all else, people need to understand that there is <i>nothing</i> that can <i>ever</i> protect this data in perpetuity. Eventually, governments change, corporate management changes, and the only thing even semi-protecting your data is a thin sheet of "this is what we say we're doing with it right now".
I'm really, really happy that there are so many comments here on this thread that show people are starting to understand and appreciate the value of their privacy, but I'll believe people <i>really</i> care when they delete their facebook accounts and stop using shiny tools like gmail. Anyone willing to sacrifice their convenience for the principals that are being so loudly touted here on this thread?
<br>
Both of my children are LoJacked, child tracking software, part of our no curfew policy as long as we know where they are. So I don't see a problem here, all parents should be tracking their child's movements now, especially when the technology is so widely available and inexpensive. It's certainly a lot more effective than trying to determine their whereabouts with messaging. As far as tracking child predators over messaging, again the parents should have a handle on who their child is speaking too and what is being said, one of the stipulations for my child joining any social network is that I have access to their accounts until 16, this is a new world we are living in, such measures have to be taken. Trust has nothing to do with my motives. This is an internal family matter, the government has no jurisdiction and this argument of there's falls flatter than my chest, pre-boobie implants of course.
www.phonesheriff.com
A generation of people are growing up never having known a reality in which they weren't tracked or monitored. Having authority figures know their whereabouts virtually all the time and keeping detailed tabs on their social life and personal interactions is the norm in their lives.
Now, don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying this to find fault with you. As a parent, I exercise degrees of some of those measures myself, so if I tried to throw any stones at you, they'd have to go through my glass walls first. I'm just pointing out the big picture that's taking shape right now as a result of our individual efforts as parents. Something to think about.
The idea is you can encrypt to protect "America's Interests", but the Gov't must always have access to the key that they can use before they tell you they are suspecting you. Warrantless Search. So your 'PreCrime' statement isn't far from the truth.
<b>that's the issue with iMessage et al. The keys are created and stored by the two phones in use. The Gov't can't go to the single key escrow point (the server) and say, please give us all the messages. </b>
...
Apple, with their end to end control was able to just flip a switch and say 'Those messages, iCloud files... we don't have a key.' Go ask them yourselves.' That's why Apple's name is being brought up in vain. Samsung/Google/Microsoft can't do what Apple does.
Yes! This is how all private communication <i>should</i> happen - or at least <i>be able</i> to happen. Directly, without centralization of the data itself. Unfortunately, this still allows meta data to be gathered, but it's a good step in the right direction.
If adopted across the board it would shatter companies like google, whose entire business model depends on building detailed "dossiers" of their users.
Heaven forbid we actually blame the *perpetrator* for the child's death. No, of course, it's the *phone's fault*. WT actual F??? Cole is high on power and needs to be removed. Now.
Same executive orders that Reagan, Bush the first (accelerated citizenship for those who enlist), and Bush the 2nd issued (the whole issue with Central American Youth's coming to America is because Bush signed an exec order saying to give them a fair amnesty hearing)
Don't try to make this political when it's a racial thing.
A direct reply to someone mentioning the government ignoring the constitution and you bring race into it? As for Reagan and Bush, what they did was tied directly to legislation passed by congress and signed into law. The current President has said multiple times he can't do what he is about to do because he must abide by the law.
Lets stick to law and stop bringing race into it....
Before really judging if this is a problem, don't we need to know exactly WHICH child will die? I mean, if you could teleport a smartphone back to when Hitler was a child I guess you would want it to be an Android device.
The DOJ argument can be inverted: what about the possible situation where the "good guy's" keys are used by non-good-guys to hack into a child's or parent's iOS device and use it to perpetrate kidnapping? In that situation, Apple making such keys available would have led to the death of a child.
Who cares if a child will die? This bringing up children is the lowest of the low emotional blackmailing techniques. THOUSANDS of children die each day of hunger, are run over by drunk drivers, shot by guns, etc. We neither force a fairer system of economics, nor do we outlaw cars, alcohol, or guns. So: DOJ shut the **** up, you have any more the right to dig around in my brain extension device than you're allowed to feed me "truth serum" during interrogation. If you want to know what's on my phone, serve me a warrant, and then I can choose to fight or ignore it. The fact that the primitive nature of analog telephony gave law enforcement a cheap break in terms of investigation does not allow them to derive a right from such an accident.
With their thinking it would follow that if once they convict an aging crime boss who due to bad hearing is talking so loud that nearby investigators can hear him, than then they can mutilate everyone's ears so we all have to talk equally loudly; you know, people insisting on whispers will kill a child, someday, maybe...
IMO, accessing your kids social network accounts is a bit much... what if they wanted to come out as gay, or their less-responsible friend likes to send teaser-sexting? There's a potential childporn charge just for looking at your kids friends wall/posts. Lojack their devices and vehicles for sure though.
And to bring this back to the original topic, "think of the children" is why we have bad laws. Instead of trying to protect children like they are eggshells, we should be treating them with the same respect any other adult should have, but toning down the consequences for "not knowing." The amount of carte blanche some children and teens "know" they have is scary.
I no longer do it with my teenage daughter but for children under 12, I feel differently. Their internet activities should be monitored regardless of how liberal your house hold is. This is just my opinion after raising two children and seeing first hand what kind of materials and links are shared when their at school. Children don't need to be expose to animal porn or cyber sex at the age of 11, beleive it or not but a large majority have already been exposed to these kinds of materials and are even continuing particpation in such things. Educating your children and than hoping all will be okay is just not enough anymore, I'm not saying you should read everything they post but their are programs that search for keywords and links, alarming the parent when such materials are found.
With their thinking it would follow that if once they convict an aging crime boss who due to bad hearing is talking so loud that nearby investigators can hear him, than then they can mutilate everyone's ears so we all have to talk equally loudly; you know, people insisting on whispers will kill a child, someday, maybe...
Ah...the 'Harrison Bergeron' method of social and legal reform.
One day, a child will die because we can't read the minds of criminals. Oh wait...
Privacy is privacy. Whether the information is in someone's head or on their phone, if you can't compel people to reveal what they don't wish to reveal, there's not much (legally) that can be done about it. That's what they wish to change... people's right to privacy. Why not just say that then? Oh right. Because then it would be clear why it's not ethical.
Ah yes, the old "if it saves one life" argument. Politicians just LOVE that one. How can anyone argue against saving a life? Am I right? Other ways to "save one life" are to wear a helmet 24/7... to never leave your house... and to outlaw raised beds... since a certain percentage of people die every year from falling out of bed.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Point taken. ' Oh Apple please please let me in through the backdoor. I'm only hunting criminals but what the heck while I'm here let me spy on the American people. Thanks a whole bunch,'
Comments
Just one? Sounds like a good trade-off to me. Privacy and freedom from government intrusion for 300+ million Americans for 1 dead kid.
<br>
Yes, this. As a nation, many people have sacrificed their lives for freedom, and one very important aspect of freedom is the freedom of privacy. Freedom from "unreasonable search and seizure". But most people's lackadaisical attitudes have made this moot for nearly everything except physical goods.
<br>
If you (and your child) use existing spyware like facebook, gmail (and many others), then those conversations will most certainly be available at the touch of a button 20 years from now. As a society, we have <i>already</i> been slowly throwing away our freedom of privacy over the past decade or so by using all manner of spyware like this. If people here think there's a difference between having commercial organizations monitor, store and analyze all your movements, purchases, likes and dislikes, social contacts, conversations, etc., and governments doing the same thing, then I'm not sure what to say.
Clearly if this data exists, then it is available to not just the companies that gather it, but to our government as well. Some companies do a better job of <i>attempting</i> to protect it, but at the end of the day, any U.S. company can be compelled to give up customer data, and in most cases they aren't allowed to even talk about specifics, only large-scale aggregated numbers. Not only can <i>our</i> government access this data, but other countries, criminals networks, etc., all want this data, and no security mechanisms are perfect. The centralization of this kind of data makes it an enormous target for all kinds of organizations. Even google has been hacked, both by Chinese interests and by our own government.
Most people have <i>already</i> given their lives over to insane amounts of personal tracking -- facebook, google, skype, Apple, grocery stores, credit/debit cards, even texting. Pretty much all <i>centralized</i> digital communication is tracked, attached to individuals, and much of it sold in back channels to data brokers. Above all else, people need to understand that there is <i>nothing</i> that can <i>ever</i> protect this data in perpetuity. Eventually, governments change, corporate management changes, and the only thing even semi-protecting your data is a thin sheet of "this is what we say we're doing with it right now".
I'm really, really happy that there are so many comments here on this thread that show people are starting to understand and appreciate the value of their privacy, but I'll believe people <i>really</i> care when they delete their facebook accounts and stop using shiny tools like gmail. Anyone willing to sacrifice their convenience for the principals that are being so loudly touted here on this thread?
<br>
Quote:
Both of my children are LoJacked, child tracking software, part of our no curfew policy as long as we know where they are. So I don't see a problem here, all parents should be tracking their child's movements now, especially when the technology is so widely available and inexpensive. It's certainly a lot more effective than trying to determine their whereabouts with messaging. As far as tracking child predators over messaging, again the parents should have a handle on who their child is speaking too and what is being said, one of the stipulations for my child joining any social network is that I have access to their accounts until 16, this is a new world we are living in, such measures have to be taken. Trust has nothing to do with my motives. This is an internal family matter, the government has no jurisdiction and this argument of there's falls flatter than my chest, pre-boobie implants of course.
www.phonesheriff.com
A generation of people are growing up never having known a reality in which they weren't tracked or monitored. Having authority figures know their whereabouts virtually all the time and keeping detailed tabs on their social life and personal interactions is the norm in their lives.
Now, don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying this to find fault with you. As a parent, I exercise degrees of some of those measures myself, so if I tried to throw any stones at you, they'd have to go through my glass walls first. I'm just pointing out the big picture that's taking shape right now as a result of our individual efforts as parents. Something to think about.
Yes! This is how all private communication <i>should</i> happen - or at least <i>be able</i> to happen. Directly, without centralization of the data itself. Unfortunately, this still allows meta data to be gathered, but it's a good step in the right direction.
If adopted across the board it would shatter companies like google, whose entire business model depends on building detailed "dossiers" of their users.
Don't try to make this political when it's a racial thing.
1. Keep your delusions to yourself. Your way of thinking is dangerous to yourself and others.
2. No, no other president has acted on amnesty in this way. The previous actions had Congressional approval.
Same executive orders that Reagan, Bush the first (accelerated citizenship for those who enlist), and Bush the 2nd issued (the whole issue with Central American Youth's coming to America is because Bush signed an exec order saying to give them a fair amnesty hearing)
Don't try to make this political when it's a racial thing.
A direct reply to someone mentioning the government ignoring the constitution and you bring race into it? As for Reagan and Bush, what they did was tied directly to legislation passed by congress and signed into law. The current President has said multiple times he can't do what he is about to do because he must abide by the law.
Lets stick to law and stop bringing race into it....
Before really judging if this is a problem, don't we need to know exactly WHICH child will die? I mean, if you could teleport a smartphone back to when Hitler was a child I guess you would want it to be an Android device.
This bringing up children is the lowest of the low emotional blackmailing techniques.
THOUSANDS of children die each day of hunger, are run over by drunk drivers, shot by guns, etc.
We neither force a fairer system of economics, nor do we outlaw cars, alcohol, or guns.
So: DOJ shut the **** up, you have any more the right to dig around in my brain extension device than you're allowed to feed me "truth serum" during interrogation.
If you want to know what's on my phone, serve me a warrant, and then I can choose to fight or ignore it.
The fact that the primitive nature of analog telephony gave law enforcement a cheap break in terms of investigation does not allow them to derive a right from such an accident.
With their thinking it would follow that if once they convict an aging crime boss who due to bad hearing is talking so loud that nearby investigators can hear him, than then they can mutilate everyone's ears so we all have to talk equally loudly; you know, people insisting on whispers will kill a child, someday, maybe...
I no longer do it with my teenage daughter but for children under 12, I feel differently. Their internet activities should be monitored regardless of how liberal your house hold is. This is just my opinion after raising two children and seeing first hand what kind of materials and links are shared when their at school. Children don't need to be expose to animal porn or cyber sex at the age of 11, beleive it or not but a large majority have already been exposed to these kinds of materials and are even continuing particpation in such things. Educating your children and than hoping all will be okay is just not enough anymore, I'm not saying you should read everything they post but their are programs that search for keywords and links, alarming the parent when such materials are found.
With their thinking it would follow that if once they convict an aging crime boss who due to bad hearing is talking so loud that nearby investigators can hear him, than then they can mutilate everyone's ears so we all have to talk equally loudly; you know, people insisting on whispers will kill a child, someday, maybe...
Ah...the 'Harrison Bergeron' method of social and legal reform.
This I can get behind wholeheartedly.
What about a child like this one?
You want these morons to have more power than they already have?
Protect and serve, my arse.
Oh wait...
Privacy is privacy. Whether the information is in someone's head or on their phone, if you can't compel people to reveal what they don't wish to reveal, there's not much (legally) that can be done about it. That's what they wish to change... people's right to privacy. Why not just say that then? Oh right. Because then it would be clear why it's not ethical.
Ah yes, the old "if it saves one life" argument. Politicians just LOVE that one. How can anyone argue against saving a life? Am I right? Other ways to "save one life" are to wear a helmet 24/7... to never leave your house... and to outlaw raised beds... since a certain percentage of people die every year from falling out of bed.
So only one dead child stands between all of our privacy and security?
Sorry kid.
Actually laughed out loud on this one. LOL.
I think Apple said it best: We can't create a key only the good guys can use.
But we all know that the media will spin this as a way to attack Apple and create artificial demand for other mobile operating systems.
One kid to get our privacy back?
Sorry, kid...