You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation, and in times of crisis, is easily avoided/manipulated, and history proves that over and over. This is a case where the Director of an Agency under the umbrella of the Department of Justice under the current Administration is now seen in overreach by Congress, and at least one Federal Magistrate. That is how our system of government survives and evolves. There isn't any Constitutional purity simply for temporal reasons; the Founding Fathers wouldn't have any idea of the future beyond at most a vague few decades.
Yikes! Really? So the Ten Commandments are really old and up for interpretation to all Christians just because it's old and written in stone? A law is a law. They didn't write it in the abstract. They wrote it in such a basic way that only people trying to skirt around it try to "interpret" it. If followed to the tee and not allowed for the "variations on a theme" approach, we would not have such a mess of things now. It's because judges started trying to "interpret" it rather than follow it that's created these "precedences" - they use those to justify even further perversion of the actual written law.
So you run about on the Sabbath and stone to death anyone you find violating the day by working? Because, you know, the law is the law. Here's hoping you get a great price when you sell your daughters into slavery. "The Law".
razor maid said: Yikes! Really? So the Ten Commandments are really old and up for interpretation to all Christians just because it's old and written in stone?
So you run about on the Sabbath and stone to death anyone you find violating the day by working? Because, you know, the law is the law. Here's hoping you get a great price when you sell your daughters into slavery. “The Law".
Hang on. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant. There’s a lot of misunderstanding going around about what Christians believe vs. Jews.
So you run about on the Sabbath and stone to death anyone you find violating the day by working? Because, you know, the law is the law. Here's hoping you get a great price when you sell your daughters into slavery. “The Law".
Hang on. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant. There’s a lot of misunderstanding going around about what Christians believe vs. Jews.
The Bible? So it's okay to pick and choose what parts to obey to the tee and what parts to ignore? That sounds a whole lot like "interpretation" to me.
Or to the Commandments? Thou shalt not kill. To the tee? Yet we have an enormous military? So unilateral disarmament because there's no "interpretation" allowed for that very clear directive? That was the statement of the poster I was responding to: NO "interpretation" allowed: To. The. Tee.
Are those thousands of other companies being forced to write a custom OS (backdoor) as well? Or are they simply handing over emails after being served with a court order?
Edited: Did she also forget Apple has ALREADY handed over what they were capable of? Like iCloud backups?
Who appointed this stupid person? Evidently she has been under a rock the past week and has not been briefed of all the evidence Apple has provided of their assistance to the FBI. Along with the fact it was the work phone which most likely did not have any data on it unlike the personal phone that was destroyed.
Who appointed her? The same Constitution-trashing incompetent who appointed her predecessor, Eric Holder.
She also was previously appointed a position by Bill Clinton.
At the conference, Lynch plans to tell tech companies that there must be a balance between personal security and national security.
That balance has swung way too far in favor of national security; e.g.: PRISM, FISA, NSA phone record collection, Stingray cell phone tracking, etc. So much for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures...
So it's okay to pick and choose what parts to obey to the tee and what parts to ignore?
Nope, it’s okay to know what is and is not doctrine.
Or to the Commandments? Thou shalt not kill. To the tee?
There’s a difference between killing (murder) and killing (defense–of person or of ideology). There’s a reason that secular law makes this distinction, after all...
So you run about on the Sabbath and stone to death anyone you find violating the day by working? Because, you know, the law is the law. Here's hoping you get a great price when you sell your daughters into slavery. "The Law".
Last time I checked the Ten Commandments do not tell to sell anyone in slavery. That is what it means, perversion of law. You know it very well and are good at it.
You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation, and in times of crisis, is easily avoided/manipulated, and history proves that over and over. This is a case where the Director of an Agency under the umbrella of the Department of Justice under the current Administration is now seen in overreach by Congress, and at least one Federal Magistrate. That is how our system of government survives and evolves. There isn't any Constitutional purity simply for temporal reasons; the Founding Fathers wouldn't have any idea of the future beyond at most a vague few decades.
Yikes! Really? So the Ten Commandments are really old and up for interpretation to all Christians just because it's old and written in stone?
Regading the constitition: A law is a law. They didn't write it in the abstract. They wrote it in such a basic way that only people trying to skirt around it try to "interpret" it. If followed to the tee and not allowed for the "variations on a theme" approach, we would not have such a mess of things now. It's because judges started trying to "interpret" it rather than follow it that's created these "precedences" - they use those to justify even further perversion of the actual written law.
The Framer's of the Constitution were so confident in their prescient abilities, that they included Article 5, which is the Amendment process to the Constitution. How many Amendments have there been?
Why does the FBI need Apple's cooperation at all? Can't they just hire hackers to do what they want? And no, they don't need Apple to digitally "sign" their hacked copy of iOS, because they can simply replace that iPhone 5c's ROM chip(s) with altered ROMs that don't care if the OS isn't signed properly. If you have physical possession of the iPhone -- and it's a pre-secure-enclave iPhone -- you can do whatever you want. (That's why Apple came up with the secure enclave.)
I think the FBI wants Apple to do it for them, simply to set a legal precedent -- a precedent that later might be leveraged into a mandatory built-in backdoor. Without such a backdoor, and with the secure enclave, today's iPhone 6 designs are impenetrable even with the iPhone in your possession, and even by Apple.
Hang on. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant. There’s a lot of misunderstanding going around about what Christians believe vs. Jews.
The Bible? So it's okay to pick and choose what parts to obey to the tee and what parts to ignore? That sounds a whole lot like "interpretation" to me.
Or to the Commandments? Thou shalt not kill. To the tee? Yet we have an enormous military? So unilateral disarmament because there's no "interpretation" allowed for that very clear directive? That was the statement of the poster I was responding to: NO "interpretation" allowed: To. The. Tee.
Commandment about Sabbath is the only one which does not have
significance in New Testament, as it does not play much role in everyday
life. Every other commandment is followed to the tee by devout
Christians, they are not left for interpretation. Also remember this
change of one commandment came from the Author of the Bible, not some
interpreter.
As it is already said, murder and self defense are two different things.
Why does the FBI need Apple's cooperation at all? Can't they just hire hackers to do what they want? And no, they don't need Apple to digitally "sign" their hacked copy of iOS, because they can simply replace that iPhone 5c's ROM chip(s) with altered ROMs that don't care if the OS isn't signed properly. If you have physical possession of the iPhone -- and it's a pre-secure-enclave iPhone -- you can do whatever you want. (That's why Apple came up with the secure enclave.)
I think the FBI wants Apple to do it for them, simply to set a legal precedent -- a precedent that later might be leveraged into a mandatory built-in backdoor. Without such a backdoor, and with the secure enclave, today's iPhone 6 designs are impenetrable even with the iPhone in your possession, and even by Apple.
Have you not been paying attention to any of the discussion here? All of those points have been made repeatedly.
Be aware that the Constitution belongs to the People of this country and defines the limits of Government and what they can and can't do. The "balance of power" has nothing to do with the rights held by the people and rights not conferred on the Federal Government by the people.
You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation, and in times of crisis, is easily avoided/manipulated, and history proves that over and over. This is a case where the Director of an Agency under the umbrella of the Department of Justice under the current Administration is now seen in overreach by Congress, and at least one Federal Magistrate. That is how our system of government survives and evolves. There isn't any Constitutional purity simply for temporal reasons; the Founding Fathers wouldn't have any idea of the future beyond at most a vague few decades.
"You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation" - NO IT IS NOT !!!! Just because elected officials or appointed ones side step it does not make it right.
Amendment IV - It says the government can "search" and "seize" with a warrant but not that we must provide them the means to accomplish that.
The people who wrote the Constitution knew exactly what they were writing. It is straight forward and not open to "interpretation" by those who wish to find a way around it.
Yikes! Really? So the Ten Commandments are really old and up for interpretation to all Christians just because it's old and written in stone?
Regading the constitition: A law is a law. They didn't write it in the abstract. They wrote it in such a basic way that only people trying to skirt around it try to "interpret" it. If followed to the tee and not allowed for the "variations on a theme" approach, we would not have such a mess of things now. It's because judges started trying to "interpret" it rather than follow it that's created these "precedences" - they use those to justify even further perversion of the actual written law.
The Framer's of the Constitution were so confident in their prescient abilities, that they included Article 5, which is the Amendment process to the Constitution. How many Amendments have there been?
Why does the FBI need Apple's cooperation at all? Can't they just hire hackers to do what they want? And no, they don't need Apple to digitally "sign" their hacked copy of iOS, because they can simply replace that iPhone 5c's ROM chip(s) with altered ROMs that don't care if the OS isn't signed properly. If you have physical possession of the iPhone -- and it's a pre-secure-enclave iPhone -- you can do whatever you want. (That's why Apple came up with the secure enclave.)
I think the FBI wants Apple to do it for them, simply to set a legal precedent -- a precedent that later might be leveraged into a mandatory built-in backdoor. Without such a backdoor, and with the secure enclave, today's iPhone 6 designs are impenetrable even with the iPhone in your possession, and even by Apple.
Interesting that they are after Apple to get the data. Could be a crack showing in the abilities of the NSA. Why hasn't the FBI talked to them, or did they, and the NSA could not provide anything?
Neo111 said: Evidently she has been under a rock the past week and has not been briefed of all the evidence Apple has provided of their assistance to the FBI. Along with the fact it was the work phone which most likely did not have any data on it unlike the personal phone that was destroyed.
Judging from the interview, Loretta Lynch wants the same thing the FBI wants and will ignore any laws that say otherwise:
She thinks they should get all the rights and civilians have the right to remain silent and comply. She gets paid over $100k per year to act like this.
You can hear the same lies in what she says, at 2:52 when she was asked about involuntary servitude, she responds by saying, that doesn't matter, when the law says please comply with the law, that's not servitude. Just another official who won't be held accountable for lying in public. The interviewer should have pressed her on the involuntary servitude point by asking her how she expected something that didn't exist to come into existence without the use of forced labor. Given that her job role is to interpret the law, failing to do this on something this important should mean she isn't fit to do her job.
She says that Apple has done a great job protecting their own code. That sounds a lot like they've tried to steal it. With open source systems like Android/Linux, they have the code already. Microsoft gives their code to the government:
Corporations will have to backup their software source code to different locations but Apple has obviously done a good job to keep it hidden from the intelligence agencies. Maybe they use snail mail for backups. Or maybe they only have one copy and they are just one update to Adobe Creative Cloud away from it being wiped out. It would be interesting to find out how many source code backups Apple keeps and how reliable they are given that over 1 billion devices depend on the code.
Given that all of these high ranking officials have made it clear they are not intent on complying with the law as it stands today and don't care about respecting the civil liberties of the people who pay them, look forward to them constantly trying to hide laws inside other bills to get what they want.
The Framer's of the Constitution were so confident in their prescient abilities, that they included Article 5, which is the Amendment process to the Constitution. How many Amendments have there been?
Nonetheless, the Constitution was designed as a document that evolves, so it isn't static by any ideology.
Yeah, sorry, repeating it incessantly won’t make it true.
“Shall not be infringed” is pretty fucking clear. And it’s not the Constitution that grants you those rights in the first place, so it cannot be amended to remove them.
Comments
Or to the Commandments? Thou shalt not kill. To the tee? Yet we have an enormous military? So unilateral disarmament because there's no "interpretation" allowed for that very clear directive? That was the statement of the poster I was responding to: NO "interpretation" allowed: To. The. Tee.
She also was previously appointed a position by Bill Clinton.
There’s a difference between killing (murder) and killing (defense–of person or of ideology). There’s a reason that secular law makes this distinction, after all...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I think the FBI wants Apple to do it for them, simply to set a legal precedent -- a precedent that later might be leveraged into a mandatory built-in backdoor. Without such a backdoor, and with the secure enclave, today's iPhone 6 designs are impenetrable even with the iPhone in your possession, and even by Apple.
Commandment about Sabbath is the only one which does not have significance in New Testament, as it does not play much role in everyday life. Every other commandment is followed to the tee by devout Christians, they are not left for interpretation. Also remember this change of one commandment came from the Author of the Bible, not some interpreter.
As it is already said, murder and self defense are two different things.
Amendment IV - It says the government can "search" and "seize" with a warrant but not that we must provide them the means to accomplish that.
The people who wrote the Constitution knew exactly what they were writing. It is straight forward and not open to "interpretation" by those who wish to find a way around it.
She thinks they should get all the rights and civilians have the right to remain silent and comply. She gets paid over $100k per year to act like this.
You can hear the same lies in what she says, at 2:52 when she was asked about involuntary servitude, she responds by saying, that doesn't matter, when the law says please comply with the law, that's not servitude. Just another official who won't be held accountable for lying in public. The interviewer should have pressed her on the involuntary servitude point by asking her how she expected something that didn't exist to come into existence without the use of forced labor. Given that her job role is to interpret the law, failing to do this on something this important should mean she isn't fit to do her job.
She says that Apple has done a great job protecting their own code. That sounds a lot like they've tried to steal it. With open source systems like Android/Linux, they have the code already. Microsoft gives their code to the government:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/twc/government-security-program.aspx
The intelligence agencies have been stealing data that gets synced between servers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html
Corporations will have to backup their software source code to different locations but Apple has obviously done a good job to keep it hidden from the intelligence agencies. Maybe they use snail mail for backups. Or maybe they only have one copy and they are just one update to Adobe Creative Cloud away from it being wiped out. It would be interesting to find out how many source code backups Apple keeps and how reliable they are given that over 1 billion devices depend on the code.
Given that all of these high ranking officials have made it clear they are not intent on complying with the law as it stands today and don't care about respecting the civil liberties of the people who pay them, look forward to them constantly trying to hide laws inside other bills to get what they want.
“Shall not be infringed” is pretty fucking clear. And it’s not the Constitution that grants you those rights in the first place, so it cannot be amended to remove them.