Pretty surprised at the political divide. This issue is definitely crossing and blurring traditional political norms...
Conservatives generally favor a less intrusive government (Go Apple) but are very often the law and order type (Go FBI). Many conservatives are supporting Apple here. The Republican candidates better make sure they understand this.
Liberals generally like big government inserting itself into all aspects of people's lives (Go FBI), but are very distrustful of law enforcement (Go Apple).
What you're seeing here folks is the initial thoughts on an important topic before people have been told what to think by their peers, political party or celebrities. We'll see how all this plays out, but it won't be long before the ideological sides are drawn up and people stop thinking for themselves.
I think some of the divide comes from how it's being presented to the public. The media likes to stir up anger in people so the articles say things like 'Apple refuses to unlock terrorist's iPhone', which both aligns their position in support of an enemy and indicates that their input would be trivial. The people who work at Apple are not the kind who try to stir up anger like that in response so they come back with talking about privacy but when some people hear about terrorists and liberals maintaining rights even for criminals that doesn't sit well with them and they ignore the consequences of it.
If the media was being fair to Apple (and everyone in the media has good reason to take their side in this), it would be more accurate to say 'Apple refuses FBI's request to build software to hack into iPhones'. The articles should then describe the consequences of this. If Apple made it to work over USB, the FBI could potentially repurpose it to work over wifi. If it worked for a single UUID, they'd figure out how to make it work for another. If the software was successfully destroyed after creating it, they'd ask them to recreate it again and again.
It is disappointing to see how much the media can manipulate the public so easily but we've seen it happen so often. It wasn't long ago that the public was against domestic spying and mass surveillance:
"In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June.
What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights."
So what changed, all of a sudden they think this is a different group of people? It's the same people who violated their privacy rights before but all it takes is some talk about terror and threats to children and they fall back in line.
There needs to be some compromises to privacy to ensure security, this is clear but there's never any clarification over what privacy compromises actually help maintain security. The mass surveillance hasn't stopped numerous attacks but tracking social media can give indications of affiliations. The airport security screening has stopped some attacks. There are things that people would be instantly against like home surveillance and yet they don't seem to link their mobile phone with this. The following interview gives a very good summary of what's going on:
There was a mention of distinguishing between domestic and foreign surveillance but that's not enough when you have domestic terrorism. There has to be a boundary established regardless, as the following quote from the video indicates:
"If we sacrifice our values because we're afraid, we don't care about those values very much"
The people around 25:00 would agree but only when it's framed in the right context, which is when it's a clear violation of personal privacy. He said in the interview that people in the agencies pass nude pictures of people around.
When polling about Apple unlocking a terrorist's phone, they shouldn't just ask "should Apple unlock a terrorist's iPhone?" to which people would naively reply yes to, they should firstly phrase it correctly and ask "should Apple build a tool to let the FBI hack into a terrorist's iPhone?". If yes, then ask "what if that tool also meant that some random person at the FBI could look at all your personal pictures on your phone?". They wouldn't be so hasty to answer yes.
sog35 said: The FBI director has already lied about this. He said it was only about 1 iPhone. LIES.
Exactly and they should be prosecuted for this perjury, especially when it's such a high profile case. When they say it's one iPhone, the truth is that it's each iPhone they ask for. The first sets a precedent for every request that follows. Ask the FBI director to sign a declaration stating that it will only be for this single iPhone until the end of time and they'll never ask again. They won't do it, which proves they're lying and they should be prosecuted for this.
Pretty surprised at the political divide. This issue is definitely crossing and blurring traditional political norms...
Conservatives generally favor a less intrusive government (Go Apple) but are very often the law and order type (Go FBI). Many conservatives are supporting Apple here. The Republican candidates better make sure they understand this.
Liberals generally like big government inserting itself into all aspects of people's lives (Go FBI), but are very distrustful of law enforcement (Go Apple).
What you're seeing here folks is the initial thoughts on an important topic before people have been told what to think by their peers, political party or celebrities. We'll see how all this plays out, but it won't be long before the ideological sides are drawn up and people stop thinking for themselves.
I think some of the divide comes from how it's being presented to the public. The media likes to stir up anger in people so the articles say things like 'Apple refuses to unlock terrorist's iPhone', which both aligns their position in support of an enemy and indicates that their input would be trivial. The people who work at Apple are not the kind who try to stir up anger like that in response so they come back with talking about privacy but when some people hear about terrorists and liberals maintaining rights even for criminals that doesn't sit well with them and they ignore the consequences of it.
If the media was being fair to Apple (and everyone in the media has good reason to take their side in this), it would be more accurate to say 'Apple refuses FBI's request to build software to hack into iPhones'. The articles should then describe the consequences of this. If Apple made it to work over USB, the FBI could potentially repurpose it to work over wifi. If it worked for a single UUID, they'd figure out how to make it work for another. If the software was successfully destroyed after creating it, they'd ask them to recreate it again and again.
It is disappointing to see how much the media can manipulate the public so easily but we've seen it happen so often. It wasn't long ago that the public was against domestic spying and mass surveillance:
"In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June.
What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights."
So what changed, all of a sudden they think this is a different group of people? It's the same people who violated their privacy rights before but all it takes is some talk about terror and threats to children and they fall back in line.
There needs to be some compromises to privacy to ensure security, this is clear but there's never any clarification over what privacy compromises actually help maintain security. The mass surveillance hasn't stopped numerous attacks but tracking social media can give indications of affiliations. The airport security screening has stopped some attacks. There are things that people would be instantly against like home surveillance and yet they don't seem to link their mobile phone with this. The following interview gives a very good summary of what's going on:
There was a mention of distinguishing between domestic and foreign surveillance but that's not enough when you have domestic terrorism. There has to be a boundary established regardless, as the following quote from the video indicates:
"If we sacrifice our values because we're afraid, we don't care about those values very much"
The people around 25:00 would agree but only when it's framed in the right context, which is when it's a clear violation of personal privacy. He said in the interview that people in the agencies pass nude pictures of people around.
When polling about Apple unlocking a terrorist's phone, they shouldn't just ask "should Apple unlock a terrorist's iPhone?" to which people would naively reply yes to, they should firstly phrase it correctly and ask "should Apple build a tool to let the FBI hack into a terrorist's iPhone?". If yes, then ask "what if that tool also meant that some random person at the FBI could look at all your personal pictures on your phone?". They wouldn't be so hasty to answer yes.
Exactly and they should be prosecuted for this perjury, especially when it's such a high profile case. When they say it's one iPhone, the truth is that it's each iPhone they ask for. The first sets a precedent for every request that follows. Ask the FBI director to sign a declaration stating that it will only be for this single iPhone until the end of time and they'll never ask again. They won't do it, which proves they're lying and they should be prosecuted for this.
Thank you for the detailed response to my off-the-cuff observation.
Comments
If the media was being fair to Apple (and everyone in the media has good reason to take their side in this), it would be more accurate to say 'Apple refuses FBI's request to build software to hack into iPhones'. The articles should then describe the consequences of this. If Apple made it to work over USB, the FBI could potentially repurpose it to work over wifi. If it worked for a single UUID, they'd figure out how to make it work for another. If the software was successfully destroyed after creating it, they'd ask them to recreate it again and again.
It is disappointing to see how much the media can manipulate the public so easily but we've seen it happen so often. It wasn't long ago that the public was against domestic spying and mass surveillance:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying
"In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June.
What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights."
So what changed, all of a sudden they think this is a different group of people? It's the same people who violated their privacy rights before but all it takes is some talk about terror and threats to children and they fall back in line.
There needs to be some compromises to privacy to ensure security, this is clear but there's never any clarification over what privacy compromises actually help maintain security. The mass surveillance hasn't stopped numerous attacks but tracking social media can give indications of affiliations. The airport security screening has stopped some attacks. There are things that people would be instantly against like home surveillance and yet they don't seem to link their mobile phone with this. The following interview gives a very good summary of what's going on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M&t=1050
There was a mention of distinguishing between domestic and foreign surveillance but that's not enough when you have domestic terrorism. There has to be a boundary established regardless, as the following quote from the video indicates:
"If we sacrifice our values because we're afraid, we don't care about those values very much"
The people around 25:00 would agree but only when it's framed in the right context, which is when it's a clear violation of personal privacy. He said in the interview that people in the agencies pass nude pictures of people around.
When polling about Apple unlocking a terrorist's phone, they shouldn't just ask "should Apple unlock a terrorist's iPhone?" to which people would naively reply yes to, they should firstly phrase it correctly and ask "should Apple build a tool to let the FBI hack into a terrorist's iPhone?". If yes, then ask "what if that tool also meant that some random person at the FBI could look at all your personal pictures on your phone?". They wouldn't be so hasty to answer yes.
Exactly and they should be prosecuted for this perjury, especially when it's such a high profile case. When they say it's one iPhone, the truth is that it's each iPhone they ask for. The first sets a precedent for every request that follows. Ask the FBI director to sign a declaration stating that it will only be for this single iPhone until the end of time and they'll never ask again. They won't do it, which proves they're lying and they should be prosecuted for this.
Thank you for the detailed response to my off-the-cuff observation.