Putin would never do something like this, right Edward Snowden?
Snowden is a hero. We wouldn't know a tenth of what we know our government is doing to us if it were not for him. Anyone who puts Snowden down is anti-American and anti-freedom.
Correct. But you can't determine all of the specifics of restraint simply by reading the Constitution. You also have to read the laws that have been passed and upheld. Plus, many of the aspects of the Constitution that people like to quote today are from amendments, meaning that the original Constitution did not include them.
The Constitution is the peoples document that establishes what the government can and can't do. The first 10 amendments were added because the Anti-Federalists wanted protection in case the government tried to take rights away. To answer your comment specifically, the constitution speaks to it directly...
Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Good thing they put that in there otherwise the government could appoint itself powers it was not entitled to. But that is the dilemma we find ourselves in today because the government does just that. A strict reading of the constitution is what is needed these days. Too many look for nuance when specifics are listed and the constitution means what is says.
Snowden is a hero. We wouldn't know a tenth of what we know our government is doing to us if it were not for him. Anyone who puts Snowden down is anti-American and anti-freedom.
You have to laugh when a government can make a law making it illegal for you to expose their illegal activities.
Snowden is a hero. We wouldn't know a tenth of what we know our government is doing to us if it were not for him. Anyone who puts Snowden down is anti-American and anti-freedom.
Snowden is controlled opposition. I do not doubt for a second that everything he says/releases is 100% true.
But the only reason this information made it out is to gauge public perception and normalize mass surveillance.
Look into snowden's past, his working in the intelligence community is non-sequitur given his academic background.
I wonder what would happen if a government-hacked device, say a smartphone, router, vehicle (car, plane, boat) navigation system, etc., were to fail as a result of the government sponsored hack and the failure resulted in the loss of life. Do you think the government would step up and compensate the victims of the failure? Or do you think the shining pinnacle of virtue we call our government leaders would let the product vendor take the fall for the failure?
I think we know the answer but this scenario would be a good plot for a Tom Clancy novel.
Wait, I thought Apple was working with the government to hand over all our secrets and their public protesting was just a smokescreen...
That troll meme is only trotted out when someone calls Google out on doing the same. Rule of the Troll #93:When you can't deny Google is doing evil, deflect criticism by saying Apple is doing it too.
If the central government had really been intended to be "weak", then how do you explain the central government buying and/or conquering such large amounts of territory following the original revolution?
Because that was one of the narrowly defined tasks of the central government?
Or the fact that the Constitution has always said that federal law supersedes state law?
Not an issue if you stick to a limited number of federal laws as originally intended.
Or the Civil War for that matter?
Again the civil war was entirely to uphold the constitution. Just because most of the power was intended to be concentrated at the states doesn't mean that they also intended for complete anarchy.
You might try actually reading the constitution. It's not that long - really!
I swear, what is it with people today that there can't be any thought invested in understanding the much more useful areas of thought that exist between the extremes vs. knee-jerk running from one extreme position to the other?
What you need to understand is that politics attract sociopaths and sociopaths are also the ones who can weasel their way up the ranks
Ranks of politicians. I'm not worried about the military, sociopaths are not going to get very high in it or stay there long if they manage. Politicians on the other hand... the old adage about those who want to hold elected positions are usually the last kinds of people you would want in those positions comes to mind.
Apple, for its part, has vehemently defended itself, saying it has not cooperated in any government spying efforts and that it places its users' privacy above all else. In a statement issued in 2013, the company said it uses its resources "to stay ahead of MALICIOUS HACKERS and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who's behind them."
So apple claims that the CIA is a malicious hacker. The next step should be a law suit.
Ranks of politicians. I'm not worried about the military, sociopaths are not going to get very high in it or stay there long if they manage. Politicians on the other hand... the old adage about those who want to hold elected positions are usually the last kinds of people you would want in those positions comes to mind.
Agreed.
Plato said the consequence of abstaining from politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Smart people those Greeks.
Of course the CIA explores ways to crack into the iPhone. That's their job! It would be irrepsonsible of them not to. If it was learned that a terrorist used a certain technology to carry out an attack and that the CIA never bothered explore ways to compromise that technology before the attack, everyone would be up in arms about how inept the CIA was. Look how much flak the intelligence community gets for not identifying and stopping the 9/11 attack. Seems they are damed if they do, damed if they don't.
Just to offer an analogy (maybe not perfect)...you don't wait for a hostage situation to decide that maybe it would be a good idea to explore and train for dealing with that type of situation. You figure out ways to deal with it BEFORE it happens. It's their job to be prepared, and the public would hold them accountable if they weren't.
So, I have no problem that they look for ways for dealing with particular situation (a foreign threat is using an iPhone). The question is what else are they using it for?Every technology ever developed in anticipation of the need to defend a population could also be used against that same population. I've yet to see any suggestion (other than Snowden fans) that any of this has been used against masses of American citizens.
I actually do think that the US goverment needs to be reigned in and that they sometimes go to far collecting information about US citiziens. But I also fully expect they not wait until after it's found out that ISIS is using iPhones to communicate and that they are anticipating the need to be able to get inside of the iPhone's security if the need arises. You don't wait until that need arises to start thinking about how to do it.
But there is also an expectation that you don't then turn your new technology against your own population. Doesn't matter it it's swords or guns or wiretaps or iPhone encryption keys. Don't take away the capability to defend your population. Just stop electing morons as the ones who determine what the rules are.
Congress has passed bills that were signed into law and later ruled to be unconstitutional. Does that by itself prove that Congress as an institution is trying to oppress U.S. citizens? No.
When you’re willing to actually respond to the argument, let us know.
…that doesn’t prove anything regarding an intent to oppress U.S. citizens.
Read the brief on what they were discovered to be doing. Read the Fourth Amendment. It’s a pretty simple concept. Intent is meaningless, by the way. You may not have intended to knock down a water tower when your gun misfired, but you still broke the law.
In fact, since it was the NSA's own audit that provided the proof of the violation, it really doesn't make much sense to claim the NSA had a deliberate intent.
That’s mind-numbingly delusional nonsense and you know it, since you’re obviously intelligent enough to continue posting while explicitly avoiding answering anything to which you’re replying. It’s like saying, “Oh, North Korea allowed the UN to audit them; that’s PROOF that any nuclear weapons they may have created weren’t created intentionally!”
It should be noted that the Snowden documents that reveal this information are nearly 3 years old, which could mean that Apple has since stepped up their security measures significantly and/or the CIA may have significantly increased the resources committed to hacking iOS.
Some of the research is secret. Some of it isn't. But the organization itself is not secret.
All I can tell you is this, my wife worked for a company which provided them software which was not use in a secret work they were doing since it was basic commercial software. However, she was not allow into any of their facilities without a through background check and she visited a number of their labs to provide training. She could not even visit without a invite from someone at the facility.
I also know they share information on things which they do not deem secret anymore. You can go to their website and they are willing to licensing technologies the develop. But the initial research was consider secret but, sometime they find thing which have no secret value so they license it to the general public. You just have to share profits from their technologies back with the lab.
Comments
Putin would never do something like this, right Edward Snowden?
Snowden is a hero. We wouldn't know a tenth of what we know our government is doing to us if it were not for him. Anyone who puts Snowden down is anti-American and anti-freedom.
Correct. But you can't determine all of the specifics of restraint simply by reading the Constitution. You also have to read the laws that have been passed and upheld. Plus, many of the aspects of the Constitution that people like to quote today are from amendments, meaning that the original Constitution did not include them.
The Constitution is the peoples document that establishes what the government can and can't do. The first 10 amendments were added because the Anti-Federalists wanted protection in case the government tried to take rights away. To answer your comment specifically, the constitution speaks to it directly...
Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Good thing they put that in there otherwise the government could appoint itself powers it was not entitled to. But that is the dilemma we find ourselves in today because the government does just that. A strict reading of the constitution is what is needed these days. Too many look for nuance when specifics are listed and the constitution means what is says.
Snowden is a hero. We wouldn't know a tenth of what we know our government is doing to us if it were not for him. Anyone who puts Snowden down is anti-American and anti-freedom.
You have to laugh when a government can make a law making it illegal for you to expose their illegal activities.
Snowden is a hero. We wouldn't know a tenth of what we know our government is doing to us if it were not for him. Anyone who puts Snowden down is anti-American and anti-freedom.
Snowden is controlled opposition. I do not doubt for a second that everything he says/releases is 100% true.
But the only reason this information made it out is to gauge public perception and normalize mass surveillance.
Look into snowden's past, his working in the intelligence community is non-sequitur given his academic background.
I think we know the answer but this scenario would be a good plot for a Tom Clancy novel.
RIP Tom.
RIP government integrity and dignity.
That troll meme is only trotted out when someone calls Google out on doing the same. Rule of the Troll #93: When you can't deny Google is doing evil, deflect criticism by saying Apple is doing it too.
Because that was one of the narrowly defined tasks of the central government?
Not an issue if you stick to a limited number of federal laws as originally intended.
Again the civil war was entirely to uphold the constitution. Just because most of the power was intended to be concentrated at the states doesn't mean that they also intended for complete anarchy.
You might try actually reading the constitution. It's not that long - really!
I swear, what is it with people today that there can't be any thought invested in understanding the much more useful areas of thought that exist between the extremes vs. knee-jerk running from one extreme position to the other?
Ranks of politicians. I'm not worried about the military, sociopaths are not going to get very high in it or stay there long if they manage. Politicians on the other hand... the old adage about those who want to hold elected positions are usually the last kinds of people you would want in those positions comes to mind.
Ha - looking at they gyrations they use to stuff everything under the interstate commerce clause tells you all you really need to know...
...
Apple, for its part, has vehemently defended itself, saying it has not cooperated in any government spying efforts and that it places its users' privacy above all else. In a statement issued in 2013, the company said it uses its resources "to stay ahead of MALICIOUS HACKERS and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who's behind them."
So apple claims that the CIA is a malicious hacker. The next step should be a law suit.
So apple claims that the CIA is a malicious hacker. The next step should be a law suit.
A lawsuit against the three-letter agencies? LOL. That idea is DOA.
A lawsuit against the three-letter agencies? LOL. That idea is DOA.
And whoever brings it forward will be KIA! Ba-dum TSSSS
Ranks of politicians. I'm not worried about the military, sociopaths are not going to get very high in it or stay there long if they manage. Politicians on the other hand... the old adage about those who want to hold elected positions are usually the last kinds of people you would want in those positions comes to mind.
Agreed.
Plato said the consequence of abstaining from politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Smart people those Greeks.
Of course the CIA explores ways to crack into the iPhone. That's their job! It would be irrepsonsible of them not to. If it was learned that a terrorist used a certain technology to carry out an attack and that the CIA never bothered explore ways to compromise that technology before the attack, everyone would be up in arms about how inept the CIA was. Look how much flak the intelligence community gets for not identifying and stopping the 9/11 attack. Seems they are damed if they do, damed if they don't.
Just to offer an analogy (maybe not perfect)...you don't wait for a hostage situation to decide that maybe it would be a good idea to explore and train for dealing with that type of situation. You figure out ways to deal with it BEFORE it happens. It's their job to be prepared, and the public would hold them accountable if they weren't.
So, I have no problem that they look for ways for dealing with particular situation (a foreign threat is using an iPhone). The question is what else are they using it for? Every technology ever developed in anticipation of the need to defend a population could also be used against that same population. I've yet to see any suggestion (other than Snowden fans) that any of this has been used against masses of American citizens.
I actually do think that the US goverment needs to be reigned in and that they sometimes go to far collecting information about US citiziens. But I also fully expect they not wait until after it's found out that ISIS is using iPhones to communicate and that they are anticipating the need to be able to get inside of the iPhone's security if the need arises. You don't wait until that need arises to start thinking about how to do it.
But there is also an expectation that you don't then turn your new technology against your own population. Doesn't matter it it's swords or guns or wiretaps or iPhone encryption keys. Don't take away the capability to defend your population. Just stop electing morons as the ones who determine what the rules are.
Congress has passed bills that were signed into law and later ruled to be unconstitutional. Does that by itself prove that Congress as an institution is trying to oppress U.S. citizens? No.
When you’re willing to actually respond to the argument, let us know.
Read the brief on what they were discovered to be doing. Read the Fourth Amendment. It’s a pretty simple concept. Intent is meaningless, by the way. You may not have intended to knock down a water tower when your gun misfired, but you still broke the law.
That’s mind-numbingly delusional nonsense and you know it, since you’re obviously intelligent enough to continue posting while explicitly avoiding answering anything to which you’re replying. It’s like saying, “Oh, North Korea allowed the UN to audit them; that’s PROOF that any nuclear weapons they may have created weren’t created intentionally!”
...Redirect him to the actual content of the constitution...it baffles him.
It should be noted that the Snowden documents that reveal this information are nearly 3 years old, which could mean that Apple has since stepped up their security measures significantly and/or the CIA may have significantly increased the resources committed to hacking iOS.
All I can tell you is this, my wife worked for a company which provided them software which was not use in a secret work they were doing since it was basic commercial software. However, she was not allow into any of their facilities without a through background check and she visited a number of their labs to provide training. She could not even visit without a invite from someone at the facility.
I also know they share information on things which they do not deem secret anymore. You can go to their website and they are willing to licensing technologies the develop. But the initial research was consider secret but, sometime they find thing which have no secret value so they license it to the general public. You just have to share profits from their technologies back with the lab.
She could not even visit without a invite from someone at the facility.
That's hardly unusual. Lots of companies won't let you past reception unless you're on a list.