AT&T CEO says US encryption policy is up to Congress, not Apple

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 73
    The People to AT&T CEO:
    Government is for the people, by the people.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 22 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,766member
    I agree with Nola. Screw Stephenson. Our rights are inherent and the Constitution is there to PROTECT our individual rights.
    Which part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights grants your rights to purchase cell phones that do not have encryption back doors pre-installed?
  • Reply 23 of 73
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,003member
    Wow Wired wasn't wrong when they said 2016 would be the year Tech Companies got scapegoated as the enermy.
  • Reply 24 of 73
    steven n. said:
    He read the bill of rights and other amendments. 
    So he invented that statement after reading documents that don’t say it at all?
  • Reply 25 of 73
    volcan said:
    I agree with Nola. Screw Stephenson. Our rights are inherent and the Constitution is there to PROTECT our individual rights.
    Which part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights grants your rights to purchase cell phones that do not have encryption back doors pre-installed?
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    - Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

    Have you really never read the Bill of Rights?
    Borderdogtallest skilnolamacguy
  • Reply 26 of 73
    ktappe said:
    He is quite wrong. It is a decision for the courts, specifically SCOTUS, on whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to be able to search and seize your communications. The government mandating all phones be unencrypted is directly analogous to it mandating all house front doors be kept unlocked; nobody would put up with that, nor should they put up with this. Stephenson is wrong about it being a decision for the people; if the people all wanted something else that was unconstitutional, such as mandated prayer in schools or slavery, they wouldn't get those either. The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is not to cowtow to the whim of the masses, but to protect the rights of oppressed minority.
    Courts offer opinions.  They don't make rulings or law.  It is actually up to us to assert our rights, and it is clearly a case that is protected under the 4th: 

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    The authorities don't want back doors so they can access the content.  They want it so they can access it without a warrant, or with a broad (e.g. naming 300 million people) warrant.  Law enforcement has argued time and again that a cell phone is not one's "personal effects".  That's bullshit, and any American doing even a dolt's worth of thinking can see that.

    You are correct about the nature and extent of laws. We do NOT live in a Democracy, nor do we live in a Representative Democracy (or republic) as many claim.  We live in a Constitutional Republic. This means that we elect representatives to defend our natural rights on our behalf as outlined in (but not limited to) the Bill of Rights, and to ensure the government is operating within the parameters laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America.  It could be 314,999,999 people against the one, but if that one person would have his individual rights trampled by the mob of 315 million, then they are not allowed under the law to act on their whim.
    edited January 2016 tallest skil
  • Reply 27 of 73
    It's gotten to the point where we have to be careful in what we say over our cell phones or what we say via emails or posts on a forum or thread.
    Has the FBI and CIA become so inept that they have to have a backdoor to our personal conversations and emails?
  • Reply 28 of 73
    jfc1138 said:

    ktappe said:
    He is quite wrong. It is a decision for the courts, specifically SCOTUS, on whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to be able to search and seize your communications. The government mandating all phones be unencrypted is directly analogous to it mandating all house front doors be kept unlocked; nobody would put up with that, nor should they put up with this. Stephenson is wrong about it being a decision for the people; if the people all wanted something else that was unconstitutional, such as mandated prayer in schools or slavery, they wouldn't get those either. The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is not to cowtow to the whim of the masses, but to protect the rights of oppressed minority.
    Not really a mandate of unlocked doors, the 4th specifies a warrant, not no-access ever and the 14th reinforces due-process guarantees..
    "Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Where the argument might rest is government's rather naive assumption that were a "backdoor" to be included that only they would ever posses a key whose use would be regulated, perhaps, by a 4th amendment compliant warrant.

    That's a bullshit argument.  Let me tell you why: NSA, CIA, FBI, BATFE, CPS, Local PD

    It is clear that government wants only one thing: dead easy access to every aspect of your life at any cost.  It is abundantly clear they don't want access only at the times when they have sufficient reason.  They are TAKING what they want now, and are only upset because the most popular, powerful, and loved company in the world is taking it upon themselves to defend your rights.  Give them an inch, they'll drag your sorry ass behind their M1 Abrams tank for miles, or until you are nothing more than shark bait.  

    Your rights will NEVER be asserted by the government, only violated.  It is YOUR job to assert your rights, and you're damn lucky to have a company like Apple who willingly and publicly stands up against the government in helping you realize your deep responsibility in asserting those rights.
    tallest skilpropod
  • Reply 29 of 73
    ktappe said:
    The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is… …to protect the rights of oppressed minority.
    Fucking lol, where on Earth do you get that?
    You don't really believe the tripe you hear on prime-time television about us living in a Democracy, do you?  We live in a Constitutional Republic.  Look up what that means, and you'll see "where on Earth" ktappe gets that.
  • Reply 30 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,766member
    macwise said:
    volcan said:
    Which part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights grants your rights to purchase cell phones that do not have encryption back doors pre-installed?
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable ....
    Ok let me stop you right there. Who is forcing you to buy a cell phone? 
  • Reply 31 of 73
    volcan said:
    macwise said:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable ....
    Ok let me stop you right there. Who is forcing you to buy a cell phone? 
    So you're saying that congress can make a law which allows government to enter your home and search it anytime you buy a desk, and your argument would be that "Who is forcing you to buy a desk?" Are you really that daft?
    edited January 2016 tallest skilnolamacguy
  • Reply 32 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,766member
    macwise said:
    volcan said:
    Ok let me stop you right there. Who is forcing you to buy a cell phone? 
    So you're saying that congress can make a law which allows government to enter your home and search it anytime you buy a desk, and your argument would be that "Who is forcing you to buy a desk?" Are you really that daft?
    No, just pointing out that there is no provision in the Constitution for any of what people are arguing as their rights. The articles are very literal.  Encryption is not mentioned in any way manner or form.
  • Reply 33 of 73
    Randall Stephenson is probably that worse part of liberals (fool) who forgets privacy and certain laws that are to be obeyed by government as resposibility to people not the other way around. Get subpoena first then people release encryption keys etc. Until then nobody gives damn about what you think and some will use encryption (even if it takes architectural layer above what vendor/manufacturer provides). Got that?
    macwise
  • Reply 34 of 73
    volcan said:
    macwise said:
    So you're saying that congress can make a law which allows government to enter your home and search it anytime you buy a desk, and your argument would be that "Who is forcing you to buy a desk?" Are you really that daft?
    No, just pointing out that there is no provision in the Constitution for any of what people are arguing as their rights. The articles are very literal.  Encryption is not mentioned in any way manner or form.
    So what?  Sexual assault by police is not specifically mentioned either. Does that mean police have the right to rape you every time they pull you over?  

    Saying an inherent right doesn't exist simply because it isn't explicitly listed is about as wrong as it gets when it comes to the purpose and power of the constitution.  

    I suppose you don't have the right to free speech on the internet since it wasn't explicitly mentioned in Amendment I.  Sound about right?
    edited January 2016 nolamacguy
  • Reply 35 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,766member
    If you have a Constitutional grievence take it up with the courts. Encryption is  an undecided legal issue.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 36 of 73
    volcan said:
    If you have a Constitutional grievence take it up with the courts. Encryption is  an undecided legal issue.
    So you don't have a valid rebuttal?

    But then, how could you. Everything you said was poppycock, just like Randall Stephenson.

    Unless you believe it is a crime for a person to employ any kind of meaningful encryption, then you are arguing on behalf of government intrusion for no other reason than for the sake of argument.  The founding fathers, however, were asserting their rights against a tyrannical government, and it was in that spirit that the founding documents were written and ratified. To argue otherwise is both futile and fallacious.
    tallest skilnolamacguy
  • Reply 37 of 73
    screw. him. our rights, such as the right to privacy, are assumed to exist and are only recognized by the government, not granted. 

    how do these bonehead stuffed shirts get to be among the corporate-America elite??
    i think the onus is on the elite business school admission boards.
  • Reply 38 of 73
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,585member
    Fk ATT - it's not up to congress, it's up to us, and we vote by buying Apple products! What an a-hole!
    macwise
  • Reply 39 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,766member
    Off topic but this forum software really sucks. I spent a lot of time trying to compose a thoughtful reply and it never posted. Also It appears that many of the well respected posters have apparently bailed since the software conversion and many of the new members have no understanding of he long  history of this online community. I find he current state of this forum quite depressing and very user unfriendly, especially with respect to iOS. Perhaps it is a problem with iOS but I don't experience so many issues with other sites so I question the implementation of the AI software. One would think that an Apple enthusist site would be more compatible with Apple hardware.
    tallest skilnolamacguy
  • Reply 40 of 73
    droodroo Posts: 22member
    In the words of Frank Zappa, it is the job of NSA and AT&T, apparently, to "enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet."
    edited January 2016 macwise
Sign In or Register to comment.