Sure thing. Enjoy your delusions. The commies only kept existing thanks to treasonous American lend-lease. End of discussion.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That was yesterday. After today's terroristic targeting of sports fans at a German stadium they may have a change of heart.
Germans will only be free when they arrest and/or execute Merkel and her associates, which foreign EU elements won’t ever allow happen. The next step will be German states simply refusing to listen to Berlin. I imagine Bavaria’s pseudo-Texan streak will make it first in that regard.
But, do we have evidence that said terrorists are using iPhones for communications? And if encryption is opened up, would they use iPhones?
My concern is that encryption isn't the issue, but rather, what causes people to go on suicide bombings.
Obama initially got into office, as I recall, on a promise to 'bring the troops home'. As far as I can tell, there are now even more troops in foreign countries.
I am saying that these things are directly related, but these are inferences.
Finally, is encryption a gimmick? Why does Apple promote it? Do you believe we should do without encryption?
I love Apple's approach to security and privacy. I don't feel sympathetic to platforms like Android and Windows that lack it.
Who was it who said that those who trade freedom for security don't deserve either?
Finally, is encryption a gimmick? Why does Apple promote it? Do you believe we should do without encryption? I love Apple's approach to security and privacy. I don't feel sympathetic to platforms like Android and Windows that lack it.
I recently began wondering what Apple would have been able to do had they created their own wireless network like they initially desired before the iPhone’s launch.
They would have had complete control over the protocol and data sent over the air between iPhones. They could have created their own telephony standard, encrypted from the start, and used the massive power of the iPhone to decrypt the data on the fly on each end. They would have been able to offer an ever-evolving form of encryption as phones got more powerful.
With total control over the telephony protocol, Apple could have added such features as on-the-fly data transfer. The number you’re connected to isn’t in your contacts but he has an iPhone? Okay! You can use your currently open voice connection to...
1. request his Contacts card (the elements of which he could selectively choose to send to you) to save
2. send him an image/photo/audio file without needing to know his e-mail address (Oh, yes, Mr. Client; I have the mockup right here. Let me send it to you...)
3. switch over to FaceTime (video) without interrupting the connection
Finally, is encryption a gimmick? Why does Apple promote it? Do you believe we should do without encryption? I love Apple's approach to security and privacy. I don't feel sympathetic to platforms like Android and Windows that lack it.
I recently began wondering what Apple would have been able to do had they created their own wireless network like they initially desired before the iPhone’s launch.
They would have had complete control over the protocol and data sent over the air between iPhones. They could have created their own telephony standard, encrypted from the start, and used the massive power of the iPhone to decrypt the data on the fly on each end. They would have been able to offer an ever-evolving form of encryption as phones got more powerful.
With total control over the telephony protocol, Apple could have added such features as on-the-fly data transfer. The number you’re connected to isn’t in your contacts but he has an iPhone? Okay! You can use your currently open voice connection to...
1. request his Contacts card (the elements of which he could selectively choose to send to you) to save
2. send him an image/photo/audio file without needing to know his e-mail address (Oh, yes, Mr. Client; I have the mockup right here. Let me send it to you...)
3. switch over to FaceTime (video) without interrupting the connection
What country would this network be in, and what about the rest of the world?
What country would this network be in, and what about the rest of the world?
I’m sure that’s part of the reason they abandoned the idea (I heard also that they would have legally had to allow Android, et. al. devices use their bands and that Steve was livid about the idea of wasting Apple’s resources on others). Building out towers (or leasing rights to them) on any sort of global scale would have been nigh impossible.
Then there’s always an Apple satellite network, but that’s a minimum 800ms lag and Apple’s love of the user experience would have nipped that in the bud.
Germans will only be free when they arrest and/or execute Merkel and her associates, which foreign EU elements won’t ever allow happen. The next step will be German states simply refusing to listen to Berlin. I imagine Bavaria’s pseudo-Texan streak will make it first in that regard.
'Foreign EU elements' (sounds like a conspiracy theory to me!) won't let the German people murder one of its politicians? You don't say.
Almost as though the EU is made up of more than just Germany...
Do people really think the federalization of Europe is a conspiracy theory? It was literally the first stated objective of the pre-EU entity.
Well, at least you agree with me.
I genuinely can't work out whether you actually believe all this Rubbish you write or are just conducting the most brilliant baiting wind up ever unleashed on a forum.
...well that didn't take long to answer, googled you and it's clear you actually mean it. Please don't stalk me and try to kill me, I take it all back, you were right, I live in Canada/Australia...
I genuinely can't work out whether you actually believe all this Rubbish you write or are just conducting the most brilliant baiting wind up ever unleashed on a forum.
When you have literally anything whatsoever to support your claims, feel free to post it. Until then, you’re the only one spewing garbage.
Originally Posted by Bat Cat
...it’s clear you actually mean it.
Is someone who says what he means a foreign concept to you?
1. As other readers pointed out - Allied forces won the war, not America.
Some sources point out that America just waited to join the winning side. It could have been Hitler who they might have joined. Just remember - US was against both fascists and communists. That's why the US waited before they joined the war.
Yes, and America was the driving force in terms of military hardware and personnel. Britain was on the brink even with us sending them assistance for two years. America absolutely won the war.
Quote:
2. It's not that easy to win a war as you might think: e.g. Korean War ended in a stalemate and Vietnam ended in retreat.
Because we decided going all the way in Korea wasn't worth it. The North was willing to have a cease fire.
Quote:
3. You can't win a war against the terrorists.
Yes, you can. And we will.
Quote:
I am not going into a deeper definitions of war and terrorists etc.
Just let me ask, how the end of "war" with ISIS would look like?
It will be asymmetrical. It will involve targeted strikes, special forces, and non-military weapons (e.g. financial and media).
Quote:
With WWII it was clear - the capitulation of Germany (Italy, Japan). And ISIS?
Which government and country are going to capitulate? Who is going to sign the document?
There isn't going to be a document. They will capitulate when they no longer can make war. That means they are either dead have little to no means to attack us.
Quote:
Trying to win a war on terrorists/terrorism is the same as winning the war on drugs - impossible.
Terror is a tactic. We're not at war with terror. We're at war with radical Islam.
Quote:
If you ask me about the solution, then IMHO, we should support the country to fight this war for themselves. Screw those who support refugee policies. We need to support people who are staying is Syria!
P.S. As for encryption - I am all for the real privacy without 'backdoors'.
Yes, by all means, let's "support" people who we don't know. Now you are OK with the military, as long as its used the way you want? And of course you're all for total encryption. Because you're another lunatic quasi-civil libertarian.
This is the only modification I’d make to your post.
Well, this too.
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers. As for encryption, we just disagree. I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant. That would be like the government not being able to do warranted phone wiretaps in the year, say, 1970--because they couldn't break the encryption. Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism. It's not unlike creating a business specifically for money laundering purposes. After all, the clients deserve privacy, right?
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers. As for encryption, we just disagree. I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant. That would be like the government not being able to do warranted phone wiretaps in the year, say, 1970--because they couldn't break the encryption. Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism. It's not unlike creating a business specifically for money laundering purposes. After all, the clients deserve privacy, right?
"Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism." The recent study of precisely that regarding effectiveness of the sweeping data collection section 215 of the Patriot Act going back over it's entire existence could find precisely ZERO instances where ANY act of terrorism was detected and dealt with based on the information gathered at the cost of tremendous NSA effort and billions upon billions of United States Intelligence community budget dollars. Given that the normal "business data" of who communicates with whom and when and from where ARE all available via a duly issued warrant or under the appropriate circumstances withi FISA, without one being immediately issued subject to post review within a specified time frame, , encryption or not, there's no problem that I can see, at least none has been proven.
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers. As for encryption, we just disagree. I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant. That would be like the government not being able to do warranted phone wiretaps in the year, say, 1970--because they couldn't break the encryption. Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism. It's not unlike creating a business specifically for money laundering purposes. After all, the clients deserve privacy, right?
"Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism." The recent study of precisely that regarding effectiveness of the sweeping data collection section 215 of the Patriot Act going back over it's entire existence could find precisely ZERO instances where ANY act of terrorism was detected and dealt with based on the information gathered at the cost of tremendous NSA effort and billions upon billions of United States Intelligence community budget dollars. Given that the normal "business data" of who communicates with whom and when and from where ARE all available via a duly issued warrant or under the appropriate circumstances withi FISA, without one being immediately issued subject to post review within a specified time frame, , encryption or not, there's no problem that I can see, at least none has been proven.
I am not talking about mass data collection. I am talking about specific, targeted collection with a warrant.
Comments
Sure thing. Enjoy your delusions. The commies only kept existing thanks to treasonous American lend-lease. End of discussion.
Germans will only be free when they arrest and/or execute Merkel and her associates, which foreign EU elements won’t ever allow happen. The next step will be German states simply refusing to listen to Berlin. I imagine Bavaria’s pseudo-Texan streak will make it first in that regard.
But, do we have evidence that said terrorists are using iPhones for communications? And if encryption is opened up, would they use iPhones?
My concern is that encryption isn't the issue, but rather, what causes people to go on suicide bombings.
Obama initially got into office, as I recall, on a promise to 'bring the troops home'. As far as I can tell, there are now even more troops in foreign countries.
I am saying that these things are directly related, but these are inferences.
Finally, is encryption a gimmick? Why does Apple promote it? Do you believe we should do without encryption?
I love Apple's approach to security and privacy. I don't feel sympathetic to platforms like Android and Windows that lack it.
Who was it who said that those who trade freedom for security don't deserve either?
I recently began wondering what Apple would have been able to do had they created their own wireless network like they initially desired before the iPhone’s launch.
They would have had complete control over the protocol and data sent over the air between iPhones. They could have created their own telephony standard, encrypted from the start, and used the massive power of the iPhone to decrypt the data on the fly on each end. They would have been able to offer an ever-evolving form of encryption as phones got more powerful.
With total control over the telephony protocol, Apple could have added such features as on-the-fly data transfer. The number you’re connected to isn’t in your contacts but he has an iPhone? Okay! You can use your currently open voice connection to...
1. request his Contacts card (the elements of which he could selectively choose to send to you) to save
2. send him an image/photo/audio file without needing to know his e-mail address (Oh, yes, Mr. Client; I have the mockup right here. Let me send it to you...)
3. switch over to FaceTime (video) without interrupting the connection
What country would this network be in, and what about the rest of the world?
A very controversial matter, since both parts are right ... Privacy has to be protected, but State security in this time is a concern....
No solution.
I want my iMessages to be encrypted, but what about iMessage being used by terrorists?
It is not possible to force a back door for all encryption technology. This is a moot conversation.
I’m sure that’s part of the reason they abandoned the idea (I heard also that they would have legally had to allow Android, et. al. devices use their bands and that Steve was livid about the idea of wasting Apple’s resources on others). Building out towers (or leasing rights to them) on any sort of global scale would have been nigh impossible.
Then there’s always an Apple satellite network, but that’s a minimum 800ms lag and Apple’s love of the user experience would have nipped that in the bud.
Germans will only be free when they arrest and/or execute Merkel and her associates, which foreign EU elements won’t ever allow happen. The next step will be German states simply refusing to listen to Berlin. I imagine Bavaria’s pseudo-Texan streak will make it first in that regard.
'Foreign EU elements' (sounds like a conspiracy theory to me!) won't let the German people murder one of its politicians? You don't say.
'Foreign EU elements'
Almost as though the EU is made up of more than just Germany...
Do people really think the federalization of Europe is a conspiracy theory? It was literally the first stated objective of the pre-EU entity.
Well, at least you agree with me.
I genuinely can't work out whether you actually believe all this Rubbish you write or are just conducting the most brilliant baiting wind up ever unleashed on a forum.
When you have literally anything whatsoever to support your claims, feel free to post it. Until then, you’re the only one spewing garbage.
Is someone who says what he means a foreign concept to you?
Yeah, reported for libel, then.
1. As other readers pointed out - Allied forces won the war, not America.
Some sources point out that America just waited to join the winning side. It could have been Hitler who they might have joined. Just remember - US was against both fascists and communists. That's why the US waited before they joined the war.
Yes, and America was the driving force in terms of military hardware and personnel. Britain was on the brink even with us sending them assistance for two years. America absolutely won the war.
2. It's not that easy to win a war as you might think: e.g. Korean War ended in a stalemate and Vietnam ended in retreat.
Because we decided going all the way in Korea wasn't worth it. The North was willing to have a cease fire.
Yes, you can. And we will.
I am not going into a deeper definitions of war and terrorists etc.
Just let me ask, how the end of "war" with ISIS would look like?
It will be asymmetrical. It will involve targeted strikes, special forces, and non-military weapons (e.g. financial and media).
With WWII it was clear - the capitulation of Germany (Italy, Japan). And ISIS?
Which government and country are going to capitulate? Who is going to sign the document?
There isn't going to be a document. They will capitulate when they no longer can make war. That means they are either dead have little to no means to attack us.
Trying to win a war on terrorists/terrorism is the same as winning the war on drugs - impossible.
Terror is a tactic. We're not at war with terror. We're at war with radical Islam.
If you ask me about the solution, then IMHO, we should support the country to fight this war for themselves. Screw those who support refugee policies. We need to support people who are staying is Syria!
P.S. As for encryption - I am all for the real privacy without 'backdoors'.
Yes, by all means, let's "support" people who we don't know. Now you are OK with the military, as long as its used the way you want? And of course you're all for total encryption. Because you're another lunatic quasi-civil libertarian.
We're at war with Islam.
This is the only modification I’d make to your post.
Well, this too.
This is the only modification I’d make to your post.
Well, this too.
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers. As for encryption, we just disagree. I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant. That would be like the government not being able to do warranted phone wiretaps in the year, say, 1970--because they couldn't break the encryption. Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism. It's not unlike creating a business specifically for money laundering purposes. After all, the clients deserve privacy, right?
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers. As for encryption, we just disagree. I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant. That would be like the government not being able to do warranted phone wiretaps in the year, say, 1970--because they couldn't break the encryption. Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism. It's not unlike creating a business specifically for money laundering purposes. After all, the clients deserve privacy, right?
"Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism." The recent study of precisely that regarding effectiveness of the sweeping data collection section 215 of the Patriot Act going back over it's entire existence could find precisely ZERO instances where ANY act of terrorism was detected and dealt with based on the information gathered at the cost of tremendous NSA effort and billions upon billions of United States Intelligence community budget dollars. Given that the normal "business data" of who communicates with whom and when and from where ARE all available via a duly issued warrant or under the appropriate circumstances withi FISA, without one being immediately issued subject to post review within a specified time frame, , encryption or not, there's no problem that I can see, at least none has been proven.
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers. As for encryption, we just disagree. I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant. That would be like the government not being able to do warranted phone wiretaps in the year, say, 1970--because they couldn't break the encryption. Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism. It's not unlike creating a business specifically for money laundering purposes. After all, the clients deserve privacy, right?
Um... That's absurd.
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-constitutional-right-against-forced-decryption
https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
No American must consent to searches. In fact, simply stating "I do not consent to searches" is part of exercising your rights.
Ha. It's absurd that I support the ability of law enforcement to decrypt secure communications with a warrant?
Hippies.
Ha. It's absurd that I support the ability of law enforcement to decrypt secure communications with a warrant?
Hippies.
You either support the Constitution and Bill of Rights or you don't. You don't.
I daresay I'm more conservative as a "classical liberal" than you are.
I am not talking about mass data collection. I am talking about specific, targeted collection with a warrant.