What exactly does Islam say about infidel technology? It's a stupid superstitious cult, that should be grounds enough for not getting access to computers. Kinda like Christians or Democrats, these are all loser cults that prey on weak people, just to be used as peasant infantry/servants for their masters.
A better stance is "we wouldn't need to encrypt if the government wouldn't snoop"
Like, I'm not fond of HTTPS everywhere, because it needlessly complicates the web, and just fills the pockets of SSL certificate providers, while adding zero value to 99.999% of the content out there. Do you REALLY think Youtube needs to be secured? No.... at least not the cat videos. MPAA wants it because they're afraid of theft. Oh boo hoo.
Encryption is a two-way street. You can, and should encrypt anything you want not tampered with. When ISP's started tampering with DNS and redirecting people to their own 404 pages, that was enough to get people to quit using the ISP provided DNS servers. ISP greed is what is driving this, but it's also going to render AdBlock useless pretty soon, since AdBlock can't/shouldn't modify secure pages... and if it is, it's compromising the security mechanisms.
People who are scared of government surveillance, shouldn't be using Chrome. Probably unwise to use any browser that can reach into the OS's positioning information or has cloud services.
But as they say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide right? RIGHT? Echelon.
What basis in reality is there for your comment? Republican candidates have actually endorsed the idea of rounding up Muslims and branding them like the NSDAP did in Germany in WWII.
I don't like Trump at all, but the media lied on this one (as usual).
Quoting some right wing blog doesn't change the fact the front running Republican candidate is a populist-exploiting phony clown who endorses both Nazi concentration camps and Soviet style wall construction to appease the racist, white-supremacist base of the Tea Party. Trump knows republicans are easily exploited by fear mongering. He's playing conservatives as fools.
Making excuses for his wild antics just shows how incredibly insane the remaining base of religious conservative fundamentalists are.
In equating the legal enforcement of our national borders to marxist totalitarianism and in equating libel about a topic already done en masse by our government to national socialism?
Yeah, that would be a pretty accurate assessment, actually. Whether the lack comes from a failure to consider information or a failure to desire to consider it isn’t really the point. If it’s just something that hadn’t been taken into account, that’s no one’s fault. But saying these things seriously speaks to a lack of understanding.
In equating the legal enforcement of our national borders to marxist totalitarianism and in equating libel about a topic already done en masse by our government to national socialism?
Yeah, that would be a pretty accurate assessment, actually. Whether the lack comes from a failure to consider information or a failure to desire to consider it isn’t really the point. If it’s just something that hadn’t been taken into account, that’s no one’s fault. But saying these things seriously speaks to a lack of understanding.
I only asked as someone who has lived in several countries, I seem to have a somewhat different understanding of many of the labels you use. That's the problem with language of course.
In equating the legal enforcement of our national borders to marxist totalitarianism and in equating libel about a topic already done en masse by our government to national socialism?
Yeah, that would be a pretty accurate assessment, actually. Whether the lack comes from a failure to consider information or a failure to desire to consider it isn’t really the point. If it’s just something that hadn’t been taken into account, that’s no one’s fault. But saying these things seriously speaks to a lack of understanding.
We could point out that it was the Democrat, FDR, who rounded up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. But that bit of history seems to be ignored.
This is a good point. (Just as people forget the fact that Lincoln was a Republican.)
The problem is, most of the nut cases now on the anti-immigrant (unless they're Cubans) front are Republican presidential candidates. That is just a sad fact.
Authorities should be more concerned about giving everyone access to guns than to encryption. I bet guns kill many more people than encryption. Just a though..
"If a Muslim uses an iPhone to commit acts of terror, we should prosecute the manufacturers." - Hilary Clinton.
SOP for the US Legal System.
If a device fails and causes injury it is common place for the lawyers to sue every company that made parts for the item that failed. IT does not matter if the bit that company Z made was involved with the failure or not. I call it the spray effect. Something is bound to stick. When it does then $$$$ Profit results.
It is about time that victims of gun violence did the same to the makers of guns (YMMV and I respect this).
Perhaps then the legal system will sort itself out. Guns are nothing but tools like the iPhone/android/WinPhone/BBerry/etc
Comments
ISIS must love Trump; he supports their "approach" to non Muslims.
What exactly does Islam say about infidel technology? It's a stupid superstitious cult, that should be grounds enough for not getting access to computers. Kinda like Christians or Democrats, these are all loser cults that prey on weak people, just to be used as peasant infantry/servants for their masters.
You forgot to include USA Republicans.
Gizmodo: APPLE SUPPORTS TERRORISM
Like the only sane comment in here.
"If a Muslim uses an iPhone to commit acts of terror, we should prosecute the manufacturers." - Hilary Clinton.
Her stance on this issue depends on how bribes donations to the Clinton Crime Global Initiative have gone this month.
A better stance is "we wouldn't need to encrypt if the government wouldn't snoop"
Like, I'm not fond of HTTPS everywhere, because it needlessly complicates the web, and just fills the pockets of SSL certificate providers, while adding zero value to 99.999% of the content out there. Do you REALLY think Youtube needs to be secured? No.... at least not the cat videos. MPAA wants it because they're afraid of theft. Oh boo hoo.
Encryption is a two-way street. You can, and should encrypt anything you want not tampered with. When ISP's started tampering with DNS and redirecting people to their own 404 pages, that was enough to get people to quit using the ISP provided DNS servers. ISP greed is what is driving this, but it's also going to render AdBlock useless pretty soon, since AdBlock can't/shouldn't modify secure pages... and if it is, it's compromising the security mechanisms.
People who are scared of government surveillance, shouldn't be using Chrome. Probably unwise to use any browser that can reach into the OS's positioning information or has cloud services.
But as they say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide right? RIGHT? Echelon.
What basis in reality is there for your comment? Republican candidates have actually endorsed the idea of rounding up Muslims and branding them like the NSDAP did in Germany in WWII.
Nope. Nice try, that's a lie. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-crazy-trump-muslim-database-story-got-started/article/2576891
I don't like Trump at all, but the media lied on this one (as usual).
Quoting some right wing blog doesn't change the fact the front running Republican candidate is a populist-exploiting phony clown who endorses both Nazi concentration camps and Soviet style wall construction to appease the racist, white-supremacist base of the Tea Party. Trump knows republicans are easily exploited by fear mongering. He's playing conservatives as fools.
Making excuses for his wild antics just shows how incredibly insane the remaining base of religious conservative fundamentalists are.
Sorry, no.
Liberal candidates have stated they want to charge gun manufacturers for selling the guns that caused crimes, however.
I’d report that as a blatant lie–at the very least an utter lack of comprehension of the relevant topics–but I know where it would go...
You accuse others of a lack of comprehension?
In equating the legal enforcement of our national borders to marxist totalitarianism and in equating libel about a topic already done en masse by our government to national socialism?
Yeah, that would be a pretty accurate assessment, actually. Whether the lack comes from a failure to consider information or a failure to desire to consider it isn’t really the point. If it’s just something that hadn’t been taken into account, that’s no one’s fault. But saying these things seriously speaks to a lack of understanding.
We could point out that it was the Democrat, FDR, who rounded up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. But that bit of history seems to be ignored.
I only asked as someone who has lived in several countries, I seem to have a somewhat different understanding of many of the labels you use. That's the problem with language of course.
TS, please stop posting incomprehensible crap. Thank you.
This is a good point. (Just as people forget the fact that Lincoln was a Republican.)
The problem is, most of the nut cases now on the anti-immigrant (unless they're Cubans) front are Republican presidential candidates. That is just a sad fact.
Oh, no worries.
If you don’t understand it, I’ll be happy to clarify.
I don’t know of a single anti-immigrant candidate.
"If a Muslim uses an iPhone to commit acts of terror, we should prosecute the manufacturers." - Hilary Clinton.
SOP for the US Legal System.
If a device fails and causes injury it is common place for the lawyers to sue every company that made parts for the item that failed. IT does not matter if the bit that company Z made was involved with the failure or not. I call it the spray effect. Something is bound to stick. When it does then $$$$ Profit results.
It is about time that victims of gun violence did the same to the makers of guns (YMMV and I respect this).
Perhaps then the legal system will sort itself out. Guns are nothing but tools like the iPhone/android/WinPhone/BBerry/etc
It is about time that victims of gun violence did the same to the makers of guns (YMMV and I respect this).
Why do you support this psychosis? Why do you believe that the situation is in any way relevant to your analogy?
this sort of flies in the face of this article http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34842854
"Most don't tend to use iMessage or WhatsApp."
either way, it seems increasingly obvious, to me, that the only people allowed cybersecurity and privacy are governments and those called terrorists.
Nope. Nice try, that's a lie. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-crazy-trump-muslim-database-story-got-started/article/2576891
I don't like Trump at all, but the media lied on this one (as usual).
No, they actually got it right the first time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/21/donald-trump-says-he-absolutely-wants-a-database-of-syrian-refugees/
I don’t know of a single anti-immigrant candidate.
Are you watching an election other than the US presidential one?
Can the USA please stop selling weapons to regimes that violate human rights?!?
You cannot simultaneously condemn and do business with corrupt regimes.
iMessage is not a threat to our freedom, it just is this twisted business model of the arms industry.