Watch Republicans Marco Rubio & Ted Cruz side with FBI in Apple encryption debate

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 101
    We do need to get this figured out, but because we're having the debate after an extremely horrific event that draws out heavy emotions, the debate is unlikely to be civil and objective.  

    The Constitution DOES guarantee privacy and protection from an overreaching government.  However, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to perform reasonable "search and seizure."   As we move to a digital world, we're going to have to figure out how this concept fairly applies.  

    If this were a proactive debate, instead of a reactive one, it would be much easier to come to common ground.  My thought at least.  But, we're seeing a ton of polarity in the debate (thanks to politicians preying on emotions) and, as a result, there is little chance of an amicable resolution.

     I don't agree with the FBI's first pass at trying to solve the problem, but I do think they need to be able to access critical evidentiary data that could put disgusting criminals away for life, or that could save many innocent lives.  We've got to figure out how to effectively compartmentalize information to limit access when a Constitutionally-appropriate warrant is granted by the judiciary.  
    Agreed, well thought out and well spoken. 

    I understand both sides argument, but in the end, if we're talking about the safety of our country from terrorists, somebody has to take that responsibility. Not sure Apple has a great plan to tackle it. I'll put my money on the government (I don't do that very often). 
  • Reply 22 of 101
    Republicans claim to advocate:
      1. Small government
      2. Pro-business

    And yet... their positions here are for BIG government in a way that HARMS business (and individual privacy).
    Crazy.
    Sorry, but that's not an accurate assessment of Republican positions. Those are Libertarian positions, which have been coopted by the big government, big military GOP.
    designrbadmonk
  • Reply 23 of 101
    Republicans claim to advocate:
      1. Small government
      2. Pro-business

    And yet... their positions here are for BIG government in a way that HARMS business (and individual privacy).
    Crazy.
    Yep. Which is why you hear charges of RINO (Republican In Name Only) a lot from conservatives, including me.
  • Reply 24 of 101
    We do need to get this figured out, but because we're having the debate after an extremely horrific event that draws out heavy emotions, the debate is unlikely to be civil and objective.  

    The Constitution DOES guarantee privacy and protection from an overreaching government.  However, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to perform reasonable "search and seizure."   As we move to a digital world, we're going to have to figure out how this concept fairly applies.  

    If this were a proactive debate, instead of a reactive one, it would be much easier to come to common ground.  My thought at least.  But, we're seeing a ton of polarity in the debate (thanks to politicians preying on emotions) and, as a result, there is little chance of an amicable resolution.

     I don't agree with the FBI's first pass at trying to solve the problem, but I do think they need to be able to access critical evidentiary data that could put disgusting criminals away for life, or that could save many innocent lives.  We've got to figure out how to effectively compartmentalize information to limit access when a Constitutionally-appropriate warrant is granted by the judiciary.  
    I agree with this approach. Also, do dead guys have privacy rights?
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 25 of 101
    We do need to get this figured out, but because we're having the debate after an extremely horrific event that draws out heavy emotions, the debate is unlikely to be civil and objective.  

    The Constitution DOES guarantee privacy and protection from an overreaching government.  However, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to perform reasonable "search and seizure."   As we move to a digital world, we're going to have to figure out how this concept fairly applies.  

    If this were a proactive debate, instead of a reactive one, it would be much easier to come to common ground.  My thought at least.  But, we're seeing a ton of polarity in the debate (thanks to politicians preying on emotions) and, as a result, there is little chance of an amicable resolution.

     I don't agree with the FBI's first pass at trying to solve the problem, but I do think they need to be able to access critical evidentiary data that could put disgusting criminals away for life, or that could save many innocent lives.  We've got to figure out how to effectively compartmentalize information to limit access when a Constitutionally-appropriate warrant is granted by the judiciary.  
    Agreed, well thought out and well spoken. 

    I understand both sides argument, but in the end, if we're talking about the safety of our country from terrorists, somebody has to take that responsibility. Not sure Apple has a great plan to tackle it. I'll put my money on the government (I don't do that very often). 
    There is no absolute right of protection government can provide, nor should such a thing ever be expected by Americans. That way lies totalitarianism.
    ewtheckman
  • Reply 26 of 101
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    I understand both sides argument, but in the end, if we're talking about the safety of our country from terrorists, somebody has to take that responsibility. Not sure Apple has a great plan to tackle it. I'll put my money on the government (I don't do that very often). 
    Sorry, some people are just going to have to die. My privacy, my rights and my security is more important.

    And besides, if the govt was truly interested in security, they wouldn't have wide-open porous borders and illegal sanctuary cities, granting refuge to criminals and terrorists, so screw them. Leave my iPhone alone.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 27 of 101
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Republicans claim to advocate:
      1. Small government
      2. Pro-business

    And yet... their positions here are for BIG government in a way that HARMS business (and individual privacy).
    Crazy.
    Sorry, but that's not an accurate assessment of Republican positions. Those are Libertarian positions, which have been coopted by the big government, big military GOP.
    I think this demonstrates why the party is divided. 
  • Reply 28 of 101
    Any way to figure out if Trump is still using his iPhone to send tweets?
  • Reply 29 of 101
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,236member
    It's difficult to call this event a terrorist attack when sn employee attacked his coworkers. It the attackers were white Americans it would not have been called a terrorist attack and wouldn't even be discussed anymore. There's a lot of paranoid people in the US and the republican candidates are using it to stoke the fires. As for the commenters on this forum who refuse to understand this, quit following the lead sheep, educate yourself on what's going on and realize how anti-American our government has become in the last two decades. 
    lostkiwibadmonk
  • Reply 30 of 101
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,236member
    Sorry for typos. Accessing this site through the AI mobile app sucks. 
    SpamSandwichbadmonk
  • Reply 31 of 101
    apple ][ said:

    I understand both sides argument, but in the end, if we're talking about the safety of our country from terrorists, somebody has to take that responsibility. Not sure Apple has a great plan to tackle it. I'll put my money on the government (I don't do that very often). 
    Sorry, some people are just going to have to die. My privacy, my rights and my security is more important.

    And besides, if the govt was truly interested in security, they wouldn't have wide-open porous borders and illegal sanctuary cities, granting refuge to criminals and terrorists, so screw them. Leave my iPhone alone.

    apple ][ said:

    I understand both sides argument, but in the end, if we're talking about the safety of our country from terrorists, somebody has to take that responsibility. Not sure Apple has a great plan to tackle it. I'll put my money on the government (I don't do that very often). 
    Sorry, some people are just going to have to die. My privacy, my rights and my security is more important.

    And besides, if the govt was truly interested in security, they wouldn't have wide-open porous borders and illegal sanctuary cities, granting refuge to criminals and terrorists, so screw them. Leave my iPhone alone.
    That first paragraph of yours is one of the most incredibly selfish, unwarranted, and ignorant comments I've ever read on this board.  Not one sentence in the Constitution makes your right to privacy or security more important than a life-and-death situation for someone else.  Not one.  The Constitution protects you from an unreasonable search and seizure, not from having to be a part of society.

    Pick up the Constitution and read it sometime and stop just listening to politicians or talking heads.  I'm a conservative, but your statement blew my mind.  
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 32 of 101
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Any way to figure out if Trump is still using his iPhone to send tweets?
    I saw his latest tweet from today, and it doesn't say anything on the bottom, about what device it was sent from.
  • Reply 33 of 101
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Any way to figure out if Trump is still using his iPhone to send tweets?
    Now that Google, Facebook, Twiiter and Microsoft are going to file support in the court siding with Apple... Does this mean he should confine his propaganda to posts on MySpace using a Blackberry? 
    palomine
  • Reply 34 of 101
    Just like Comey, this crop of hopefuls are seeking to take a dump on the first and fifth amendments while lacking any technical understanding of the issue and displaying contempt for the constitution. We hope people understand just how important this issue is and how so many are seeking to mislead, misrepresent, and unravel the constitution for political points.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 35 of 101
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Politicians. Frak em. 
    "We should enforce the court order, and find out everyone that terrorist at San Bernardino talked to on the phone, texted with, emailed"

    someone should tell Ted this can be done by asking the service providers.

    there are laws that prevent Apple from creating a weaker OS. 
    snovalostkiwibadmonk
  • Reply 36 of 101
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    rob53 said:
    It's difficult to call this event a terrorist attack when sn employee attacked his coworkers. It the attackers were white Americans it would not have been called a terrorist attack and wouldn't even be discussed anymore. 
    Yeah, this was obviously just "work related violence", just like the Ft. Hood Terrorist attack, am I right?  :#

    Nothing to do with terrorism at all. :)
  • Reply 37 of 101
    rob53 said:
    It's difficult to call this event a terrorist attack when sn employee attacked his coworkers. It the attackers were white Americans it would not have been called a terrorist attack and wouldn't even be discussed anymore. There's a lot of paranoid people in the US and the republican candidates are using it to stoke the fires. As for the commenters on this forum who refuse to understand this, quit following the lead sheep, educate yourself on what's going on and realize how anti-American our government has become in the last two decades. 
    "Terrorism" is being used as a euphemism to ignore the ideology motivating such attacks. Terrorism is actually a tactic that uses fear to create political change. The willingness of so many people to compromise their personal security for a false sense of security from terrorist acts shows that the tactic is working.  :s
    smaffeilostkiwipunkndrublic
  • Reply 38 of 101

    apple ][ said:
    Sorry, some people are just going to have to die. My privacy, my rights and my security is more important.

    And besides, if the govt was truly interested in security, they wouldn't have wide-open porous borders and illegal sanctuary cities, granting refuge to criminals and terrorists, so screw them. Leave my iPhone alone.
    That first paragraph of yours is one of the most incredibly selfish, unwarranted, and ignorant comments I've ever read on this board.  Not one sentence in the Constitution makes your right to privacy or security more important than a life-and-death situation for someone else.  Not one.  The Constitution protects you from an unreasonable search and seizure, not from having to be a part of society.

    Pick up the Constitution and read it sometime and stop just listening to politicians or talking heads.  I'm a conservative, but your statement blew my mind.  
    The Constitution is an agreement between the states. The Bill of Rights is WHOLLY designed to protect the rights of individuals. "Society" has no rights. Individuals have rights.
    edited February 2016 ewtheckmanlostkiwi
  • Reply 39 of 101
    "There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few to protect the privacy of us all." -- Justice Scalia
    snovadesignrlostkiwiewtheckmanbadmonk
  • Reply 40 of 101
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    rob53 said:
    It's difficult to call this event a terrorist attack when sn employee attacked his coworkers. It the attackers were white Americans it would not have been called a terrorist attack and wouldn't even be discussed anymore. There's a lot of paranoid people in the US and the republican candidates are using it to stoke the fires. As for the commenters on this forum who refuse to understand this, quit following the lead sheep, educate yourself on what's going on and realize how anti-American our government has become in the last two decades. 
    Please. McVeigh was a terrorist. The church shooter in SC was a terrorist. This was a terrorist event masquerading as workplace violence. 
Sign In or Register to comment.