I fully believe that the government should have a certain amount of access to information as it pertains and aids in the protection of the American people. I understand this can lead to misuse but at the end of the day I really don't have anything on my devices that will cause me to lose sleep if the government had access...I would like someone to explain the real concern with this.
We just recently had a very well publicised incident in which quite a few young Americans demonstrated they had material on their devices they would have rather no one but themselves had access to. That material did not involve any illegal activity and no one in law enforcement or the government should ever be allowed access to it.
FBI Director James Comey on Thursday responded to the latest attempts from Apple and Google to lock down their respective mobile operating systems, saying,
“I COMPEL you to give us what we want! I COMPEL you to give us what we want! I COMPEL you to give us what we want!"
while spinning around dancing and throwing pages torn from 28 CFR 68.23 and wallet sized photos of Eric Holder...
That doesn't stop LE from seizing the phone in case the suspect is not compliant while searching with a warrant. LE are allowed to enter the suspect's premises while he speaks to legal council.
Your comments strongly suggest "troll", but I suspect you are, unfortunately, real. But, would you please try to use proper grammar when spouting your Facist views. The content of your views is hard enough to stomach without reading through your miserable grammar. Law Enforcement is a single grammatical object. LE (is) allowed....
This attitude on the part of law enforcement and politicians is exactly why we need Apple and others to take the stand that Apple has. If the information is not stored anywhere then obviously no one has access. Illustration: If I don't want pictures of me in my bedroom out in public I don't allow any pictures to be taken in my bedroom, and if any are taken I certainly don't post them anywhere anyone else can get to them. According to his thinking I am placing myself above the law with this action, because they might someday need to prosecute someone for what went on in my bedroom. By that thinking we should all be required to have cameras recording our every move and he (the law) should have access to that info at anytime he believes it is needed. The other problem with this thinking is that anything the law has access to, other bad guys can also access.
I believe in having full security. I am not against keeping data safe. What I am saying is that if certain government agencies need access to this info then there should be a means for them to do so without compromising what you are referring to.
The problem is your trusting naivety. There are supposed to be safeguards to prevent violating your rights as defined in our Constitution. Numerous agencies see these rights as impediments to their view of how to "protect us". That you are so willing to surrender your rights to those cretins running our government is your business. But, I don't feel that way. I suspect most of the people in the country don't feel that way. Giving away your rights in exchange for the ILLUSION of safety has been seen as a bad idea since the beginning of our Republic. I don't believe our government is inherently evil, but they are unbelievably incompetent. Atrocities like the knee-jerk Patriot Act would have the founders apoplectic with rage.
That it should have to be discussed or mentioned at all implies mainstream recognition of the problem. And for the problem to be of the magnitude that it warrants (pun intended) a technology solution - let alone marketing of that technology - is "off-putting".
Coming from people who willingly disregard the constitution (the supreme law of the land in the US), the FBI can shove their complaints up their respective poopers.
Your comments strongly suggest "troll", but I suspect you are, unfortunately, real. But, would you please try to use proper grammar when spouting your Facist views. The content of your views is hard enough to stomach without reading through your miserable grammar. Law Enforcement is a single grammatical object. LE (is) allowed....
Actually, his "miserable grammar" suggests British English, in which an organization is referred to in the plural.
Nobody is above the law. Read: "NOBODY". This includes the Government and all its agencies. I'm very glad Apple and Google are strong enough to level the playing field.
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
This.
Also, that the same government which has apparently put themselves 'above the law' (if Snowden's leaks are accurate) is complaining about people putting themselves above the law is ironic.
I don't think there's anything in the law that says everyone must keep their papers (or data) available - just that such papers/data are subject to search/seizure with a warrant. If a warrant is issued and the data is difficult to access, then serve the warrant, ask for the password and arrest the individual for obstruction of justice if they refuse to provide it. We have that path available.
I fully believe that the government should have a certain amount of access to information as it pertains and aids in the protection of the American people.
Sure. The government is entitled to any information about me that I make public to them. Otherwise they can shove it up their quorum.
...I really don't have anything on my devices that will cause me to lose sleep if the government had access...I would like someone to explain the real concern with this.
The simplest avenue to an explanation is that “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is not–and has never been–a valid argument.
"I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law,"
“Above the law” - How about Outside The Law? How about go f*@! yourself?
Right? The highest law of them all, the Constitution, guaranties us certain rights, including privacy and freedom from unreasonable warrants. The people who I'm more concerned about being "above the law" are government goons, not the weird old guy down the street with aluminum foil on his windows.
Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.
Wait, what?
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
Agreed - this situation is no different than you putting files in safe and burying it in your backyard (which you have every right to do). The government can get a search warrant to search your home, but unless they find the safe they can't force you to tell them where it is. Even a search warrant is not some magic reveal-all truth scroll. Even with a warrant, you still have rights.
It's pretty clear a lot of posters have a strong interest in hiding stuff from the police. It's exactly the actions and concerns that criminals spend their time on. They also like to plot and conduct their criminal activities more conveniently in secret.
Criminals also drink water... and I think I saw you drink water, therefore it's appropriate for the police to collect your phone records, interview your colleagues, and put a silent GPS tracker on your car to track your movements. If you don't like that, you shouldn't drink water.
Comments
I fully believe that the government should have a certain amount of access to information as it pertains and aids in the protection of the American people. I understand this can lead to misuse but at the end of the day I really don't have anything on my devices that will cause me to lose sleep if the government had access...I would like someone to explain the real concern with this.
We just recently had a very well publicised incident in which quite a few young Americans demonstrated they had material on their devices they would have rather no one but themselves had access to. That material did not involve any illegal activity and no one in law enforcement or the government should ever be allowed access to it.
FBI Director James Comey on Thursday responded to the latest attempts from Apple and Google to lock down their respective mobile operating systems, saying,
“I COMPEL you to give us what we want! I COMPEL you to give us what we want! I COMPEL you to give us what we want!"
while spinning around dancing and throwing pages torn from 28 CFR 68.23 and wallet sized photos of Eric Holder...
It is also interesting that there is no reference to the government overstepping boundaries - which arguably is the basis for this kerfuffle.
That being said, I do find the marketing of this feature to be a little 'off-putting'.
How so?
That doesn't stop LE from seizing the phone in case the suspect is not compliant while searching with a warrant. LE are allowed to enter the suspect's premises while he speaks to legal council.
Your comments strongly suggest "troll", but I suspect you are, unfortunately, real. But, would you please try to use proper grammar when spouting your Facist views. The content of your views is hard enough to stomach without reading through your miserable grammar. Law Enforcement is a single grammatical object. LE (is) allowed....
I believe in having full security. I am not against keeping data safe. What I am saying is that if certain government agencies need access to this info then there should be a means for them to do so without compromising what you are referring to.
The problem is your trusting naivety. There are supposed to be safeguards to prevent violating your rights as defined in our Constitution. Numerous agencies see these rights as impediments to their view of how to "protect us". That you are so willing to surrender your rights to those cretins running our government is your business. But, I don't feel that way. I suspect most of the people in the country don't feel that way. Giving away your rights in exchange for the ILLUSION of safety has been seen as a bad idea since the beginning of our Republic. I don't believe our government is inherently evil, but they are unbelievably incompetent. Atrocities like the knee-jerk Patriot Act would have the founders apoplectic with rage.
That it should have to be discussed or mentioned at all implies mainstream recognition of the problem. And for the problem to be of the magnitude that it warrants (pun intended) a technology solution - let alone marketing of that technology - is "off-putting".
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html
Do you know when government officer is lying?
When they move their lips.
Coming from people who willingly disregard the constitution (the supreme law of the land in the US), the FBI can shove their complaints up their respective poopers.
Your comments strongly suggest "troll", but I suspect you are, unfortunately, real. But, would you please try to use proper grammar when spouting your Facist views. The content of your views is hard enough to stomach without reading through your miserable grammar. Law Enforcement is a single grammatical object. LE (is) allowed....
Actually, his "miserable grammar" suggests British English, in which an organization is referred to in the plural.
What? FBI itself is above the law. Now Apple and Google are changing that. Of course, FBI is worried.
Actually, his "miserable grammar" suggests British English, in which an organization is referred to in the plural.
Perhaps, but he is still a troll.
Wait, what?
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
This.
Also, that the same government which has apparently put themselves 'above the law' (if Snowden's leaks are accurate) is complaining about people putting themselves above the law is ironic.
I don't think there's anything in the law that says everyone must keep their papers (or data) available - just that such papers/data are subject to search/seizure with a warrant. If a warrant is issued and the data is difficult to access, then serve the warrant, ask for the password and arrest the individual for obstruction of justice if they refuse to provide it. We have that path available.
Sure. The government is entitled to any information about me that I make public to them. Otherwise they can shove it up their quorum.
The simplest avenue to an explanation is that “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is not–and has never been–a valid argument.
"I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law,"
“Above the law” - How about Outside The Law? How about go f*@! yourself?
Right? The highest law of them all, the Constitution, guaranties us certain rights, including privacy and freedom from unreasonable warrants. The people who I'm more concerned about being "above the law" are government goons, not the weird old guy down the street with aluminum foil on his windows.
Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.
Wait, what?
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
Agreed - this situation is no different than you putting files in safe and burying it in your backyard (which you have every right to do). The government can get a search warrant to search your home, but unless they find the safe they can't force you to tell them where it is. Even a search warrant is not some magic reveal-all truth scroll. Even with a warrant, you still have rights.
It's pretty clear a lot of posters have a strong interest in hiding stuff from the police. It's exactly the actions and concerns that criminals spend their time on. They also like to plot and conduct their criminal activities more conveniently in secret.
Criminals also drink water... and I think I saw you drink water, therefore it's appropriate for the police to collect your phone records, interview your colleagues, and put a silent GPS tracker on your car to track your movements. If you don't like that, you shouldn't drink water.