That "unreasonable" is open to argument, so the 4th, much like all of them, was not written as an absolute.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
"Unreasonable" search means there's a "reasonable" search right? And the spread between "unreasonable" searches and "reasonable" searches is what get's interpreted and negotiated in courts etc. Yes an "unreasonable" search is banned, but determining whether a search is reasonable or unreasonable is where the door to interpretation is open. There's no "absolute" ban on government searches, just "unreasonable" government searches..
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson
liberty |?lib?rt?|
noun (pl. liberties)
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views: compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty.
• (usu. liberties) an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one: the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties.
• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: people who have lost property or liberty without due process.
• (Liberty) the personification of liberty as a female figure.
2 the power or scope to act as one pleases: individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences.
• Philosophy a person's freedom from control by fate or necessity.
• informal a presumptuous remark or action: how did he know what she was thinking?—it was a liberty!
That's more like it. Although the stance taken by Tim Cook is the first hopeful sign I've seen in 60 years of watching this paranoid government work. (I remember the McCarthy and HUAC hearings, the instant suspiciousness of the Kennedy assassination, the overthrow of Allende, that sort of thing.)
The basic right to privacy is something we have not had to debate in a meaningful way until now, when our entire mental life is contained in a little slab in our pocket. Cook is leading the charge on this. Very brave, very smart. It may force a basic change in outlook and weaken the idea of a police state, which as far as I can tell, goes all the way back in the US to the appearance of the labor movement in the 1800s. But I haven't studied that early history.
I do know that by the late 40s the police state here became fully fledged when the OSS . . . well, you know the story.
I do believe Tim Cook is passionate about this and believes in what he says but as Snowden pointed out, and it hadn't escaped me that it is convenient for him that his stance aligns perfectly with his business interests. IN many ways Apple is old school and has always been so. I mean who the hell produces physical products that are just good in their own right these days? I have always thought highly of the fact that Apple never fully embraced the 'free' advertising enabled business model.
And the next guy should be fantastic, right? No seriously, who are you excited about seeing as President next year? I'm curious, since it's not like there's a viable candidate that will oppose this stuff, more than Obama anyway.
The only announced candidate who has addressed privacy rights so far is Rand Paul. Will he win? I've no idea, it's too early in the process. The "safe" bet would be on Hillary or Bush, which I find terribly depressing.
These people are enemies of the Constitution and the American people and should be fired immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RalphMouth
Law Enforcement has stopped so many terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of potential terrorists. But because this all happened behind the scenes so to speak you don't believe it. If there was a successful attack, you would blame them for failing to do their job even though it is people like you that make it more difficult than it should be.
The problem is Law Enforcement and the NSA lost the trust of the American people!!! These open ended warrants to just spy on every single American!!! Finding ways to get around the system with some kind of loophole. The NSA is suppose to be spying outside of the US. Not the American Public at large. Law Enforcement is suppose to get a Warrant for each and every person they want to snoop on and have a real reason for doing such a thing. It's because of THAT, that people can no longer trust the Government and take their word for anything they do any longer.
This is AMERICA where you are Innocent until proven guilty. Not Everyone just guilty. Government has way to much power these days. Just because it's easier to spy on people doesn't make it right.
You put a backdoor into any security and now you've just made security worthless. If you allowing Government to just spy on everyone will change anything, you're lying to yourself. Any criminal with half a brain would use a better system to protect themselves then relying on anything Apple or anyone else does.
which terrorists have snuck over? how do you know if they snuck?
How would be know? We have kids that are crossing our boarders. It's not all that hard. Until they strike and start bombing things, you just don't know.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
These are the same people that think the Constitution is a living thing that is open to whatever you think it means. It's really quite clear and made simple so that anyone back in the day could understand it without needing a lawyer.
The only announced candidate who has addressed privacy rights so far is Rand Paul. Will he win? I've no idea, it's too early in the process. The "safe" bet would be on Hillary or Bush, which I find terribly depressing.
I hope the last thing anyone wants is a Hillary or Bush as President!!! Those are the last 2 anyone in their right mind would want.
It's obvious these people don't care about the 4th amendment or have a clue what they are doing.
This quote sums it all up.
%u201CThose who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.%u201D
Benjamin Franklin
As one of the founding fathers of this great country perhaps we need to take a step back and look for other ways to secure our shores and America's interests. There're intelligent people in this country perhaps we should seek them out for council not these others who only want to trample our rights.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
I'm trying to be objective about this, but it's really hard.
On the one hand, we don't object (generally), to a judge-approved warrant to tap a telephone, or a stake-out where zoom lens cameras are used to watch crimes inside private cars, or through windows (of private buildings).
From THAT point of view, I can see the capability the gov't is asking for, to cover the case where they DO have a legit warrant, and the person with the tech STILL says No. They want the ability to bypass an uncooperative suspect. The suspect couldn't previously prevent a phone-tap or pictures, but they CAN now prevent smartphone snooping.
But backdoors would never stay secure for ONLY the intended purpose.
The only announced candidate who has addressed privacy rights so far is Rand Paul. Will he win? I've no idea, it's too early in the process. The "safe" bet would be on Hillary or Bush, which I find terribly depressing.
I just want to make sure that everyone understands that they do not have benevolent intent with these demands.
This has nothing to do with public safety. The government isn't just trying to eliminate a security hole. They want to maintain the ability to spy on all citizens, as they have been able to do for a long time. Personal encrypted technology is now encroaching on that ability, so naturally they want to eradicate it.
Just want to make sure everyone is aware.
To what purpose, in your opinion, have they been spying on all citizens?
Technology is a global marketplace and all governments need to be considered just another security threat. If there's a backdoor for the U.S., they'll share it with "allies" like Saudi Arabia. China will hack their way through it. Your friend is someone else's foe, your foe is someone else's friend. The only level playing field is one where encryption actually works, and works well, for everybody. There WILL be "warrant-proof" zones, because that's what happens when security is not defective. Like, oh no, that would be like all of human history before the telephone, when governments had no idea in their wildest imagination that they could eavesdrop on conversations without being physically present where they were taking place. Or know what was in a message being carried by courier, or that a message even existed, unless someone who saw it told them.
In June, Apple CEO Tim Cook <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/02/apples-cook-speaks-out-against-public-private-data-harvesting-policies-">delivered a speech</a> at the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Champions of Freedom event, asserting that people have a "fundamental right to privacy," which is demanded not only by the American public but by morality and the U.S. Constitution. He also brought up the issue of backdoors, calling them fundamentally flawed.
"Criminals are using every technology tool at their disposal to hack into people's accounts," he said. "If they know there's a key hidden somewhere, they won't stop until they find it."
Hacking Team is an Italian security company used by various government agencies. According to leaked emails, the US government wanted to use their tools against mobile devices. The company was hacked and 400GB of data was stolen including software and details of exploits, which are now being used in the wild. Check the Flash updater, there's another update needing installed. These exploits can install the cryptolocker ransomware in Windows just by visiting a website, which encrypts files and locks people out of their system unless they pay money.
I think the only backdoor the government is going to get willingly from Tim Cook will be the sight of him mooning at them out the window.
It's clear the government is going to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goal though so the moral arguments are just posturing. The government displaces accountability by outsourcing to private companies. Take out the government branches and the private companies will still do it for someone because having information on people is power over them.
You know that if this ever came to pass, there would be those out there that would find James Comey's Backdoor and sell it to some mean f***ers. You know how many bad guys would come in James Comey's Backdoor? Lots. They simply would not stop coming. Ever. James Comey's Backdoor would get so much use that it would be associated with all kinds of viruses.
Keep clean of viruses. Don't come in James Comey's Backdoor.
Comments
"unreasonable searches and seizures"
That "unreasonable" is open to argument, so the 4th, much like all of them, was not written as an absolute.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
"Unreasonable" search means there's a "reasonable" search right? And the spread between "unreasonable" searches and "reasonable" searches is what get's interpreted and negotiated in courts etc. Yes an "unreasonable" search is banned, but determining whether a search is reasonable or unreasonable is where the door to interpretation is open. There's no "absolute" ban on government searches, just "unreasonable" government searches..
Not bullshit at all.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson
liberty |?lib?rt?|
noun (pl. liberties)
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views: compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty.
• (usu. liberties) an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one: the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties.
• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: people who have lost property or liberty without due process.
• (Liberty) the personification of liberty as a female figure.
2 the power or scope to act as one pleases: individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences.
• Philosophy a person's freedom from control by fate or necessity.
• informal a presumptuous remark or action: how did he know what she was thinking?—it was a liberty!
• Nautical shore leave granted to a sailor.
I do believe Tim Cook is passionate about this and believes in what he says but as Snowden pointed out, and it hadn't escaped me that it is convenient for him that his stance aligns perfectly with his business interests.
The only announced candidate who has addressed privacy rights so far is Rand Paul. Will he win? I've no idea, it's too early in the process. The "safe" bet would be on Hillary or Bush, which I find terribly depressing.
No one said that. Obama just happens to be the current Idiot-in-Charge.
How did it happen? /s
One does wonder. /s
These people are enemies of the Constitution and the American people and should be fired immediately.
Law Enforcement has stopped so many terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of potential terrorists. But because this all happened behind the scenes so to speak you don't believe it. If there was a successful attack, you would blame them for failing to do their job even though it is people like you that make it more difficult than it should be.
The problem is Law Enforcement and the NSA lost the trust of the American people!!! These open ended warrants to just spy on every single American!!! Finding ways to get around the system with some kind of loophole. The NSA is suppose to be spying outside of the US. Not the American Public at large. Law Enforcement is suppose to get a Warrant for each and every person they want to snoop on and have a real reason for doing such a thing. It's because of THAT, that people can no longer trust the Government and take their word for anything they do any longer.
This is AMERICA where you are Innocent until proven guilty. Not Everyone just guilty. Government has way to much power these days. Just because it's easier to spy on people doesn't make it right.
You put a backdoor into any security and now you've just made security worthless. If you allowing Government to just spy on everyone will change anything, you're lying to yourself. Any criminal with half a brain would use a better system to protect themselves then relying on anything Apple or anyone else does.
why do you believe that will change anything? before the current president, the previous president held the record for constitutional violations.
The current one has quadrupled that record!!!
which terrorists have snuck over? how do you know if they snuck?
How would be know? We have kids that are crossing our boarders. It's not all that hard. Until they strike and start bombing things, you just don't know.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
These are the same people that think the Constitution is a living thing that is open to whatever you think it means. It's really quite clear and made simple so that anyone back in the day could understand it without needing a lawyer.
The only announced candidate who has addressed privacy rights so far is Rand Paul. Will he win? I've no idea, it's too early in the process. The "safe" bet would be on Hillary or Bush, which I find terribly depressing.
I hope the last thing anyone wants is a Hillary or Bush as President!!! Those are the last 2 anyone in their right mind would want.
This quote sums it all up.
%u201CThose who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.%u201D
Benjamin Franklin
As one of the founding fathers of this great country perhaps we need to take a step back and look for other ways to secure our shores and America's interests. There're intelligent people in this country perhaps we should seek them out for council not these others who only want to trample our rights.
"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"
Bullshit it wasn't written as an absolute. This is one of the more cherished rights we have and is very much an absolute. This Government wants to look at my phone records or other personal effects they damn sure better have a warrant to do so.
I'm trying to be objective about this, but it's really hard.
On the one hand, we don't object (generally), to a judge-approved warrant to tap a telephone, or a stake-out where zoom lens cameras are used to watch crimes inside private cars, or through windows (of private buildings).
From THAT point of view, I can see the capability the gov't is asking for, to cover the case where they DO have a legit warrant, and the person with the tech STILL says No. They want the ability to bypass an uncooperative suspect. The suspect couldn't previously prevent a phone-tap or pictures, but they CAN now prevent smartphone snooping.
But backdoors would never stay secure for ONLY the intended purpose.
I say no way, like so many here.
The only announced candidate who has addressed privacy rights so far is Rand Paul. Will he win? I've no idea, it's too early in the process. The "safe" bet would be on Hillary or Bush, which I find terribly depressing.
Bernie Sanders
I just want to make sure that everyone understands that they do not have benevolent intent with these demands.
This has nothing to do with public safety. The government isn't just trying to eliminate a security hole. They want to maintain the ability to spy on all citizens, as they have been able to do for a long time. Personal encrypted technology is now encroaching on that ability, so naturally they want to eradicate it.
Just want to make sure everyone is aware.
To what purpose, in your opinion, have they been spying on all citizens?
Technology is a global marketplace and all governments need to be considered just another security threat. If there's a backdoor for the U.S., they'll share it with "allies" like Saudi Arabia. China will hack their way through it. Your friend is someone else's foe, your foe is someone else's friend. The only level playing field is one where encryption actually works, and works well, for everybody. There WILL be "warrant-proof" zones, because that's what happens when security is not defective. Like, oh no, that would be like all of human history before the telephone, when governments had no idea in their wildest imagination that they could eavesdrop on conversations without being physically present where they were taking place. Or know what was in a message being carried by courier, or that a message even existed, unless someone who saw it told them.
We need some early cannon fodder, glad to know you can be counted on.
Tim Cook has been proven right already:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/adobe-flash-exploit-that-was-leaked-by-hacking-team-goes-wild-patch-now/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/07/06/us-gov-likes-hacking-team/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/08/hacking_teamderived_0day_is_now_in_the_wild/
Hacking Team is an Italian security company used by various government agencies. According to leaked emails, the US government wanted to use their tools against mobile devices. The company was hacked and 400GB of data was stolen including software and details of exploits, which are now being used in the wild. Check the Flash updater, there's another update needing installed. These exploits can install the cryptolocker ransomware in Windows just by visiting a website, which encrypts files and locks people out of their system unless they pay money.
I think the only backdoor the government is going to get willingly from Tim Cook will be the sight of him mooning at them out the window.
It's clear the government is going to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goal though so the moral arguments are just posturing. The government displaces accountability by outsourcing to private companies. Take out the government branches and the private companies will still do it for someone because having information on people is power over them.
You know that if this ever came to pass, there would be those out there that would find James Comey's Backdoor and sell it to some mean f***ers. You know how many bad guys would come in James Comey's Backdoor? Lots. They simply would not stop coming. Ever. James Comey's Backdoor would get so much use that it would be associated with all kinds of viruses.
Keep clean of viruses. Don't come in James Comey's Backdoor.