Texas Rangers serve Apple with warrants for access to Sutherland Springs shooter's iPhone

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 88
    Soli said:
    kamilton said:
    The problem isn’t that crazy people have access to encrypted iPhones...
    The problem is that crazy people have access to guns.
    He shouldn't have had access to guns. The USAF made a huge mistake. Had they reported the domestic issues, he would have been denied trying to purchase weapons. 
    Does that Include private sellers and gun shows?
    I'm pro gun but I do think everyone purchasing a weapon requires a background check. I don't know all state laws, but here in California, private sales have to be completed at a licensed firearms dealer so a background check is done. The requirement is the same at guns shows here as well. That should be a nationwide requirement imo. 
    FYI, people who have taken the steps to committing acts of violence large or small are generally unconcerned about legalities. And the Vegas shooter had NO record previously.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 82 of 88
    frankie said:
    frugality said:
    The digital domain should be no different than the physical domain.  The authorities should have access to any personal information for the purposes of a criminal investigation, when authorized by a judge for special circumstances, like this warrant.  They should be able to go through your closets and crawl spaces.  They should be able to go through any digital space for files and digital fingerprints and tracks and trails of digital conversations.  Those who have nothing to be ashamed of have nothing to fear.
    Sounds like a typical conservative 'sell your rights away' 1984 comment if I ever heard one.
    Must anyone REALLY be reminded at this point that it was the previous administration behind the demand that Apple offer a backdoor to the iPhone? Wake up!

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/apple-ceo-tim-cook-blasts-encryption-backdoors/


    I hear ya and at this point it apears the Dems are basically Repubs in disguise.  They're both bought and paid for, but I doubt Michael Rogers is a Democrat.
  • Reply 83 of 88
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,179member
    Soli said:
    Does that Include private sellers and gun shows?
    boltsfan17 said:
    I'm pro gun but I do think everyone purchasing a weapon requires a background check. I don't know all state laws, but here in California, private sales have to be completed at a licensed firearms dealer so a background check is done. The requirement is the same at guns shows here as well. That should be a nationwide requirement imo. 
    The problem is... criminals - kind of by definition - don't follow laws.

    SpamSandwich said:
    Must anyone REALLY be reminded at this point that it was the previous administration behind the demand that Apple offer a backdoor to the iPhone? Wake up!
    Different political party... different set of things they be looking for with such power. Bad either way!
  • Reply 84 of 88
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,816member
    cgWerks said:
    Soli said:
    Does that Include private sellers and gun shows?
    boltsfan17 said:
    I'm pro gun but I do think everyone purchasing a weapon requires a background check. I don't know all state laws, but here in California, private sales have to be completed at a licensed firearms dealer so a background check is done. The requirement is the same at guns shows here as well. That should be a nationwide requirement imo. 
    The problem is... criminals - kind of by definition - don't follow laws.
    That always has been and always will be a lame duck argument. It's obvious that criminals break laws since you can't be a criminal without breaking laws, but you and other conveniently ignore that we have laws and you hypocrites are perfectly fine with saying that laws are good when it suits you. We have drunk driving laws and yet people still drive drunk. We have texting while driving laws and yet people still drive and text. Do you not understand that these laws exist because it's an issue that endangers lives? Do you not understand that these laws do reduce incidents? Why the fuck are you people so against even having a digitize database of gun purchases? Are you against having a registration and insurance for drivers, and believe that it does society no good when it's easy to steal a car? We don't do this for anything else. We're constantly improving regulations to make driving, flying, and countless other things safer, but I don't you're rallying against mandatory pre-flight checks because it won't stop all airline accidents so it should be ignored altogether.
    frankie
  • Reply 85 of 88
    They need to outlaw encryption ASAP. And any company that refuses to comply should be put out of business and their top management arrested and jailed.
    Completely agree.

    So the Government can monitor any online transactions without decrypting data and know who and what people buy online and their credit card number. 

    They also should ban all password system and firewall on computers, no matter it is a bank, huge company or home. No one should block the government to go through your data. In addition, ban password for bank and credit card, so the feb can withdraw money from bad guys account.

    On side note, government also plan to outlaw to use any lock on doors and all kinds of container next year. So it will be easier for government officials to search your property

    If all these happen, US will be a much safer place for the next generation.
    Solirandominternetpersonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 86 of 88
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,179member
    Soli said:
    That always has been and always will be a lame duck argument. It's obvious that criminals break laws since you can't be a criminal without breaking laws, but you and other conveniently ignore that we have laws and you hypocrites are perfectly fine with saying that laws are good when it suits you. We have drunk driving laws and yet people still drive drunk. We have texting while driving laws and yet people still drive and text. Do you not understand that these laws exist because it's an issue that endangers lives? Do you not understand that these laws do reduce incidents? Why the fuck are you people so against even having a digitize database of gun purchases? Are you against having a registration and insurance for drivers, and believe that it does society no good when it's easy to steal a car? We don't do this for anything else. We're constantly improving regulations to make driving, flying, and countless other things safer, but I don't you're rallying against mandatory pre-flight checks because it won't stop all airline accidents so it should be ignored altogether.
    Murdering people with guns *IS* already illegal.

    It isn't that I disagree with your intent, the problem is in the chain of logic. Yes, laws (and consequences for breaking them) do deter people from breaking them and generally have an influence on morality. And, unfortunately, in our current culture... the cart is somewhat before the horse in the sense that people seem to base their morality on the law, rather than think laws are based on morality. So, yes, having good laws in place will help keep much of the population in check and influence their behavior. (i.e.: strong drunk driving laws help people see drunk driving is a bad and dangerous thing).

    But, the logic doesn't follow in that making guns illegal would make people think killing people with them is a bad thing, as they already think that! The logic has to be that in making guns illegal (or hard to get, etc.) that people intent on doing harm with them, might have a harder time getting them. And, I agree, in that if you could regulate them heavily enough, it *might* have some impact on some cases. But, I have a hard time seeing how they could become so scarce, that someone intent on using one couldn't get one. That would take draconian measures.

    So, my issue is that we're barking up the wrong tree in hoping to stop mass gun murders with gun regulation. The proper analogy to drunk-driving (and gun-control laws) would be more along the lines of prohibition or strict liquor stores.

    And, my big concern with what laws are implemented and how, is how they might impact the Constitution reason for gun ownership in the first place... which is securing the other rights. If the gun laws get too strict and tracked by the government, then it makes it much harder to overthrow that government (which is already quite difficult given the disparity of weaponry and training between 'government' forces and civilians).
  • Reply 87 of 88
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,816member
    cgWerks said:
    Soli said:
    That always has been and always will be a lame duck argument. It's obvious that criminals break laws since you can't be a criminal without breaking laws, but you and other conveniently ignore that we have laws and you hypocrites are perfectly fine with saying that laws are good when it suits you. We have drunk driving laws and yet people still drive drunk. We have texting while driving laws and yet people still drive and text. Do you not understand that these laws exist because it's an issue that endangers lives? Do you not understand that these laws do reduce incidents? Why the fuck are you people so against even having a digitize database of gun purchases? Are you against having a registration and insurance for drivers, and believe that it does society no good when it's easy to steal a car? We don't do this for anything else. We're constantly improving regulations to make driving, flying, and countless other things safer, but I don't you're rallying against mandatory pre-flight checks because it won't stop all airline accidents so it should be ignored altogether.
    Murdering people with guns *IS* already illegal.

    It isn't that I disagree with your intent, the problem is in the chain of logic. Yes, laws (and consequences for breaking them) do deter people from breaking them and generally have an influence on morality. And, unfortunately, in our current culture... the cart is somewhat before the horse in the sense that people seem to base their morality on the law, rather than think laws are based on morality. So, yes, having good laws in place will help keep much of the population in check and influence their behavior. (i.e.: strong drunk driving laws help people see drunk driving is a bad and dangerous thing).

    But, the logic doesn't follow in that making guns illegal would make people think killing people with them is a bad thing, as they already think that! The logic has to be that in making guns illegal (or hard to get, etc.) that people intent on doing harm with them, might have a harder time getting them. And, I agree, in that if you could regulate them heavily enough, it *might* have some impact on some cases. But, I have a hard time seeing how they could become so scarce, that someone intent on using one couldn't get one. That would take draconian measures.

    So, my issue is that we're barking up the wrong tree in hoping to stop mass gun murders with gun regulation. The proper analogy to drunk-driving (and gun-control laws) would be more along the lines of prohibition or strict liquor stores.

    And, my big concern with what laws are implemented and how, is how they might impact the Constitution reason for gun ownership in the first place... which is securing the other rights. If the gun laws get too strict and tracked by the government, then it makes it much harder to overthrow that government (which is already quite difficult given the disparity of weaponry and training between 'government' forces and civilians).
    Someone mentions reasonable gun laws and you jump right to disallowing alcohol consumption altogether as your rebuttal. There's no other discussion where someone does this.

    edited November 2017 dasanman69
  • Reply 88 of 88
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,179member
    Soli said:
    Someone mentions reasonable gun laws and you jump right to disallowing alcohol consumption altogether as your rebuttal. There's no other discussion where someone does this.
    I don't think you're following, for whatever reason. The point was that guns aren't the problem, and prohibition was meant as an example to show how even banning something something altogether doesn't fix underlying problems, nor have the intended impact.

    We can have conversations about changing regulations around gun ownership.... so long as we're thinking of the implications and are realistic about the expected results. We're (as a society) currently no where near that. This issue is a political football with both sides trying to push their agendas based on fear, emotion, and knee-jerk reactions. (And, there seems to be a horrific lack of education around why gun ownership is such a big deal in the first place.)
Sign In or Register to comment.