Here lies the fundamental problem. If Apple provides a backdoor, criminals will be able to exploit it and there is nothing to prevent criminals from writing their own encryption communications program with no backdoor. You then have a system where criminals have access to everyone's data but law enforcement still doesn't have access to the criminals' data.
No WAY to "decrypt" that even were it scribbled on a piece of paper and handed to the FBI on a silver platter.
WHO a cellphone calls and when is a matter of business records always available with a court order: "Is the fruit order ready?". Notsomuch even in plain text.
"As a society, we don't allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches" Wrong. Where is the law that supports his statement.
Why is it that whenever the GOP wants to trounce even more of the Bill of Rights, they trot out "Child Pornography"?? it's like the boogey-man in the closet.
Why is it that whenever the GOP wants to trounce even more of the Bill of Rights, they trot out "Child Pornography"?? it's like the boogey-man in the closet.
Comey is a Democractic appointee, and Obama has expanded the NSA's programs tenfold. But keep blaming the GOP boogeyman, and be sure to send in your contribution for Hillary.
this guys is dangerous. For those who have forgotten, he essentially committed treason by co-authoring the letter telling Iran that any deal they struck with President would be reversed by congress as soon Obama leaves office.
Treaties are ratified by the Senate, FYI. Obama's "grand deal" is null and void by default.
And FYI, foreign negotiations are conducted by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH via the STATE DEPARTMENT. You should read the Constitution, once, Donald.
Extremely laughable, PGP and other tools make this argument useless. (Mr Zimmerman - the creator of PGP, was extremely harassed the US government, but he succeeded to keep the tool free for all.) Mr Cook should have mentioned the fact that encryption is a basic human right and as such cannot be forbidden or withheld.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying and am completely in favour of Tim Cooks stance on encryption, but this statement, "... encryption is a basic human right and as such cannot be forbidden or withheld" is absolute nonsense of the highest order.
There is no "basic human right" in the USA or even in the more progressive countries to encryption technology. There is not even a "basic right" to privacy in the sense that you are describing it here. Add to that, the ridiculousness of arguing that such rights as might exist are somehow absolute or immutable and you have a big pile of nonsense.
All rights are subject to the rights of others and none of them are absolute in the way you see to imagine.
Now, that last sentence seems utter nonsense to me. The funny thing with human rights is that no country has any say about them, but they do violate them in a massive way. What I mentioned was a simple extension of the basic (human) right to be free.
I would be afraid to post a contrary opinion on this site, about this topic, as it seems that everyone posting here is furious that anyone would even think something different. how about net neutrality, is that also a subject that there is no room for polite debate?
There are some good comments here. Encryption does not fuel terrorists or any other evil threat. Creating a back door is just silly talk. For the person who brought up the left versus right argument above screw you! Quit making excuses. I wasn't 100% behind Apple's position early on but I am now fully on board.
I would be afraid to post a contrary opinion on this site, about this topic, as it seems that everyone posting here is furious that anyone would even think something different. how about net neutrality, is that also a subject that there is no room for polite debate?
Net Neutrality is just another opportunity for graft.
this guys is dangerous. For those who have forgotten, he essentially committed treason by co-authoring the letter telling Iran that any deal they struck with President would be reversed by congress as soon Obama leaves office.
I don't know that this guy is as dangerous as you think, but he definitely needs to do his research. I'd love to know of a way to keep hackers out and allow the government to have a backdoor because it's NOT possible (you might be able to delay them, but you can't stop them). With smartphones, there is so much more data to protect, one seemingly innocent backdoor, could lead to one massive hack, that patching and updating won't solve.
this guys is dangerous. For those who have forgotten, he essentially committed treason by co-authoring the letter telling Iran that any deal they struck with President would be reversed by congress as soon Obama leaves office.
I have not forgotten. Him and 46 other Republican senators subverting the President while in critical negotiations with a foreign power those senators consider "the enemy." This is what passes for patriotism in the GOP today.
A president that engages in activities as stupid as negotiating with Iran should be subverted. This so called treaty (yet to be ratified) is dangerous to the entire middle east and frankly the USA. In this case there is good moral reasoning behind subverting Obama as ignoring Iran will lead to the death of hundreds of millions.
Honestly people doesn't anybody here read their history books. Iran is a very dangerous country and the sooner the current government there is eliminated the better for mankind.
You few young liberal whipper snappers here have it backwards. Obama is the one who is the treasonous bastard for creating what is a treaty with an official foreign enemy and state sponsor of terrorism (Iran), without congressional approval. It was illegal, and impeachable, although nobody in Congress has the cajones to bring impeachment proceedings. It's time to wake up before this country is lost.
And Tom Cotton is a big douche for suggesting government back doors be created into encryption in mainstream devices... And the current administration would be the 1st ones to use that capability against any perceived political enemies (aka general public), while the real bad guys will just roll their own encryption software.
this guys is dangerous. For those who have forgotten, he essentially committed treason by co-authoring the letter telling Iran that any deal they struck with President would be reversed by congress as soon Obama leaves office.
Dude, get real. He "essentially committed treason." That's just idiotic. Do you even know what treason is? I don't think you do. Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How the hell is telling Iran that their agreement is going to get reversed when Obama leaves treason? People who think like you are dangerous.
this guys is dangerous. For those who have forgotten, he essentially committed treason by co-authoring the letter telling Iran that any deal they struck with President would be reversed by congress as soon Obama leaves office.
I have not forgotten. Him and 46 other Republican senators subverting the President while in critical negotiations with a foreign power those senators consider "the enemy." This is what passes for patriotism in the GOP today.
Another idiotic post. Anyone supporting the Presidents deal is absolute fool.
this guys is dangerous. For those who have forgotten, he essentially committed treason by co-authoring the letter telling Iran that any deal they struck with President would be reversed by congress as soon Obama leaves office.
Treaties are ratified by the Senate, FYI. Obama's "grand deal" is null and void by default.
This isn't a formal treaty, which is another end run around the constitution by this constitutional law professor.
Comments
"let's have lunch at 1 on Friday"
No WAY to "decrypt" that even were it scribbled on a piece of paper and handed to the FBI on a silver platter.
WHO a cellphone calls and when is a matter of business records always available with a court order: "Is the fruit order ready?". Notsomuch even in plain text.
"As a society, we don't allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches"
Wrong. Where is the law that supports his statement.
The funny thing with human rights is that no country has any say about them, but they do violate them in a massive way.
What I mentioned was a simple extension of the basic (human) right to be free.
Another idiotic post. Anyone supporting the Presidents deal is absolute fool.
This isn't a formal treaty, which is another end run around the constitution by this constitutional law professor.