Pretty sensible comments from a reasonable man who has been asked in an official capacity to provide a statement get insensible reactions about legal jurisdiction (not infringed) and sovereignty (not threatened) from unreasonable people who haven't been asked.
There are far, far too many ill-informed and un-informed folks in this country. Too bad they vote. Even the "saintly" Ronald Reagon warned against attempting to trade freedom for security. (For you guys that can't figure it out...he was FOR the Apple position.)
I agree with Mr. Al-Hussein. Even with difficulties that encryption imposes on content collection, the FBI has more tools and more capabilities nowadays than ever to gather intelligence, to connect the dots via phone metadata, email metadata, social media, etc. An unlocked phone is just like two terrorists having face to face conversations to evade content surveillance. In the 70s, mafia bosses had all sort of tricks to avoid surveillance, but justice always prevailed. I get it. The FBI has a phone and wants to tap into it, but it is not essential. Especially since there is no evidence that there is anything relevant in the phone related to the case.
The real issue it's about law enforcement being lazy, they try to derive a right from a weakness of analog technology of yesteryear. Before there were phones there was no wiretapping, and police had to get their work done, too. Today's modern communications with encryption may help criminal elements in some ways, but even encrypted packets leave meta data traces, and physical surveillance, cell tower tracking of phones, etc. added sufficient capabilities to law enforcement's arsenal that they are not worse off than they used to be. What they would like is to close cases without ever moving their fat asses out of an office chair, getting full access to everything on anyone at anytime, and that's exactly what they should never get, or else they would hold absolute power, and I would not even in a benevolent state trust any entity with that.
Law enforcement is work, hard work, and it should remain that way if we value liberty.
The FBI and contractors need to find ways around the iPhone and other encryption. This is their job. This is what we expect them to do. Unbreakable encryption is not truly unbreakable if one can attack what is not encrypted, i.e., endpoints. Nothing is 100%. This is the reason why the private industry must keep pushing to improve encryption and never supply backdoors. The FBI needs to ramp up up their game and catch up. The problem at the FBI might be a combination of laziness, the FBI feeling entitled to coerce Apple, and/or lack of resources.
Pretty sensible comments from a reasonable man who has been asked in an official capacity to provide a statement get insensible reactions about legal jurisdiction (not infringed) and sovereignty (not threatened) from unreasonable people who haven't been asked.
Either refute me or keep your globalist bullshit to yourself.
Believe it or not, the UN has no jurisdiction over the US. His opinion is noted.
Believe it or not the U.S government has no jurisdiction over Apple regarding " Free Speech".
Truth hurts huh??!
Um, the US Govt. DOES have jurisdiction over Apple regarding "Free Speech".. WHO exactly do you think these federal judges work for? Are you really that dense?
You must be in that 10% of college grads who think Judge Judy is on SCOTUS.
Thankfully. If I had my way we'd kick them out of the US entirely.
The US is only one of many countries. I really wish it would drop the selfish self-importance and learn about cooperation.
Er, we FUND MOST of the UN's budget.... Self-importance? Then why does this corrupt, dysfunctional organization have to occupy PRIME Manhattan real estate? It would be put to much better use as a mixed-use luxury condo/office development.
Let them move the HQ to Riyadh, or Beijing or some other place... no, bc all these do-nothing bureaucrats want to be HERE.
You’ll notice that your strawman is irrelevant. Because fuck the UN. It has no legal jurisdiction anywhere. It’s a paper fruit fly. Why should we care about restricting American rights, and how would being subservient to someone else’s set of rights promote our own?
Read about the history of the formation of the UN and you’ll see why it never should have existed.
And yet you seem threatened by said paper fruit fly despite that they are 'principles' for guidance with no legal obligation other than pre-arranged agreements for action between nations.
I'm only threatened bc the UN continues to suck of the teat of the American taxpayer! Let the other countries put up more of the funding... and kick them out of Manhattan! WHY pray tell, do they need to have such a primo location? Let them help the economy of some 3rd world city instead! Check the polls... a majority of New Yorkers would like to see the UN gone....
the US Govt. DOES have jurisdiction over Apple regarding "Free Speech"
The US government has no jurisdiction whatsoever over any form of free speech, save that they must forcibly protect it within their own institutions. They have no power to make Apple or anyone else accept, say, or express anything that they do not want to.
I'm only threatened bc the UN continues to suck of the teat of the American taxpayer! Let the other countries put up more of the funding... and kick them out of Manhattan!
I’m fine with gutting US funding to the UN and kicking it off our soil while retaining our overarching veto, security council position, and membership therein. The UN must be reminded that no nation is subservient to it.
Where exactly is there any threat to US interests?
...Because fuck the UN. .... Why should we care about restricting American rights, and how would being subservient to someone else’s set of rights promote our own?
Care to explain what are American rights? And also how they are restricted by his statement?
To me it seems that he wants to protect our rights.
Comments
Figures.
Before there were phones there was no wiretapping, and police had to get their work done, too.
Today's modern communications with encryption may help criminal elements in some ways, but even encrypted packets leave meta data traces, and physical surveillance, cell tower tracking of phones, etc. added sufficient capabilities to law enforcement's arsenal that they are not worse off than they used to be.
What they would like is to close cases without ever moving their fat asses out of an office chair, getting full access to everything on anyone at anytime, and that's exactly what they should never get, or else they would hold absolute power, and I would not even in a benevolent state trust any entity with that.
Law enforcement is work, hard work, and it should remain that way if we value liberty.
You must be in that 10% of college grads who think Judge Judy is on SCOTUS.
Er, we FUND MOST of the UN's budget.... Self-importance? Then why does this corrupt, dysfunctional organization have to occupy PRIME Manhattan real estate? It would be put to much better use as a mixed-use luxury condo/office development.
Let them move the HQ to Riyadh, or Beijing or some other place... no, bc all these do-nothing bureaucrats want to be HERE.
I'm only threatened bc the UN continues to suck of the teat of the American taxpayer! Let the other countries put up more of the funding... and kick them out of Manhattan! WHY pray tell, do they need to have such a primo location? Let them help the economy of some 3rd world city instead! Check the polls... a majority of New Yorkers would like to see the UN gone....
HughJanus said:
I’m fine with gutting US funding to the UN and kicking it off our soil while retaining our overarching veto, security council position, and membership therein. The UN must be reminded that no nation is subservient to it.