Clothing manufacturers, too. They help conceal weapons. And don't get me started on the companies getting rich and fat selling doors and locks that slow the police down when they need to search homes for evil doings!
Smartphones don't kill people, crazies do. The government should be held liable for not implementing an application and screening process for people to get a smartphone.
Soooo...it's gonna sound like I'm making a sarcastic remark about AI quoting a blog orchestrated by a strategic "think tank" to influence public policy on behalf of the government, but I'm not.
You guys. Apple is not liable. They excluded themselves in paragraph 1523 of iTunes Store terms and conditions. If the terrorists click "I Accept" that means they read it. Boom. Done. Not liable.
@revenant: Google is different in that it more often still holds the encryption keys to user data sitting on its servers. This allows Google to rifle* through user data whenever it desires and share the data with authorities (or partners), in situations where Apple has no knowledge of the user data and is powerless to share. Apple Pay vs. Android Pay are the latest areas of contrast, in which Apple has no knowledge of what the user buys but Google knows it all.
One of Android's raisons d'être (and primary means of monetization) is to provide a way for Google to collect as much personal data as possible. Any of the information could be shared with governments upon request.
If Apple can be held liable for making iPhones, why shouldn't the gun manufacturers be held liable for making the guns that domestic terrorists are using to shoot up our schools and malls?
It seems to me the same argument could be made about the liability of gun manufacturers. Certainly they've been warned that terrorists might use their products.
I look at it the other way, institutions who block legal concealed carry laws are supporting terrorism and should be held accountable because lawabiding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves. As far as I'm concerned these venues are taking the responsibility for my safety when they don't allow legal people to carry. Victims families should be allowed to sue as a result.
Just release a public letter that says Apple will not comply with anything that is not Constitutional. And then don’t comply. In fact, expose everything they’re already complying with and then stop that, as well.
There’s nothing that any court would do against Apple in that regard, and the executive branch bringing any physical power to bear against a company that has explicitly stated this would be suicide for them.
While I agree it doesn't matter who you like to have sex with, this was funny, lighten up...
Well, there's no accounting for bad taste. I guess the moderators didn't think it was funny either. It's gone.
And don't be so literal. I wasn't talking about who Boltsfan likes to have sex with, just a part of his identity he might be afraid of that explains his obsession.
I'm not going to "lighten up" on his kind of baiting.
It's interesting how people, this author included, write about the government as an entity separate from the people. In this case vs. people. There's definitely some truth to it, but ultimately the people are in charge of this country if they'd wake up and care.
You guys. Apple is not liable. They excluded themselves in paragraph 1523 of iTunes Store terms and conditions. If the terrorists click "I Accept" that means they read it. Boom. Done. Not liable.
Best post.
I doubt that Apple would face any criminal liability if terrorists provably used iMessages to securely communicate, but you can bet that the Apple-clickbaiting media would have a field day with it.
The Arab Bank comparison is a false analogy. They were knowingly doing business with people were members of an identified terrorist organization. A more equivalent situation would be if Apple were informed by the government that one of their customers was a known terrorist and they continued to let them use their services. However, forcing them to weaken the encryption for everyone would be more akin to the governoment insisting they needed to review all of the bank's customers' transactions to make sure none of them were doing anything "suspicious." Apple is legally not allowed to do business with known terrorists. They aren't compelled to become a branch of the national surveillance program.
It seems to me the same argument could be made about the liability of gun manufacturers. Certainly they've been warned that terrorists might use their products.
No, because they always only sell them to people who are our friends [when they are our friends]. Unfortunately, they don't stay being our friends.
And then you have the ATF buying weapons and selling them to drug cartels for a hefty profit. Accidentally.
Comments
So does this mean Tim Cook is the first openly gay member of ISIS?
Not funny. And your obsession with this topic betrays you. Stop worrying. Whatever you are is ok. Same with other people.
Gun running through Benghazi.
Current aid to Syrian "rebels".
Aid to Iran.
Yeah, who's supporting terrorism again?
does not google tout end to end encryption as well? apple is not the only one doing this.
One of Android's raisons d'être (and primary means of monetization) is to provide a way for Google to collect as much personal data as possible. Any of the information could be shared with governments upon request.
*Perhaps 'rifle' was a poor choice of words here.
I look at it the other way, institutions who block legal concealed carry laws are supporting terrorism and should be held accountable because lawabiding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves. As far as I'm concerned these venues are taking the responsibility for my safety when they don't allow legal people to carry. Victims families should be allowed to sue as a result.
While I agree it doesn't matter who you like to have sex with, this was funny, lighten up...
You can't help yourself, can you? Every. Fucking. Thread. Your desperate reaching is embarrassing.
Just release a public letter that says Apple will not comply with anything that is not Constitutional. And then don’t comply. In fact, expose everything they’re already complying with and then stop that, as well.
There’s nothing that any court would do against Apple in that regard, and the executive branch bringing any physical power to bear against a company that has explicitly stated this would be suicide for them.
Well, there's no accounting for bad taste. I guess the moderators didn't think it was funny either. It's gone.
And don't be so literal. I wasn't talking about who Boltsfan likes to have sex with, just a part of his identity he might be afraid of that explains his obsession.
I'm not going to "lighten up" on his kind of baiting.
You guys. Apple is not liable. They excluded themselves in paragraph 1523 of iTunes Store terms and conditions. If the terrorists click "I Accept" that means they read it. Boom. Done. Not liable.
Best post.
I doubt that Apple would face any criminal liability if terrorists provably used iMessages to securely communicate, but you can bet that the Apple-clickbaiting media would have a field day with it.
The Arab Bank comparison is a false analogy. They were knowingly doing business with people were members of an identified terrorist organization. A more equivalent situation would be if Apple were informed by the government that one of their customers was a known terrorist and they continued to let them use their services. However, forcing them to weaken the encryption for everyone would be more akin to the governoment insisting they needed to review all of the bank's customers' transactions to make sure none of them were doing anything "suspicious." Apple is legally not allowed to do business with known terrorists. They aren't compelled to become a branch of the national surveillance program.
It seems to me the same argument could be made about the liability of gun manufacturers. Certainly they've been warned that terrorists might use their products.
No, because they always only sell them to people who are our friends [when they are our friends]. Unfortunately, they don't stay being our friends.
And then you have the ATF buying weapons and selling them to drug cartels for a hefty profit. Accidentally.