US Attorney General 'hopes' Apple will unlock San Bernardino iPhone

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    JamesUp said:

    jfc1138 said:
    The Bible? So it's okay to pick and choose what parts  to obey to the tee and what parts to ignore? That sounds a whole lot like "interpretation" to me. 

    Or  to the Commandments? Thou shalt not kill. To the tee? Yet we have an enormous military? So unilateral disarmament because there's no "interpretation" allowed for that very clear directive? That was the statement of the poster I was responding to: NO "interpretation" allowed: To. The. Tee.
    Commandment about Sabbath is the only one which does not have significance in New Testament, as it does not play much role in everyday life. Every other commandment is followed to the tee by devout Christians, they are not left for interpretation. Also remember this change of one commandment came from the Author of the Bible, not some interpreter.

    As it is already said, murder and self defense are two different things.
    That's an interpretation: the TEXT reads "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

    To a tee remember?
  • Reply 62 of 71
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    tmay said:
    Nonetheless, the Constitution was designed as a document that evolves, so it isn't static by any ideology.
    Yeah, sorry, repeating it incessantly won’t make it true.

    “Shall not be infringed” is pretty fucking clear. And it’s not the Constitution that grants you those rights in the first place, so it cannot be amended to remove them.
    True: no violation of that Second Amendment Trademark!, Oh. Wait.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Infringement
  • Reply 63 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    JamesUp said:

    jfc1138 said:
    The Bible? So it's okay to pick and choose what parts  to obey to the tee and what parts to ignore? That sounds a whole lot like "interpretation" to me. 

    Or  to the Commandments? Thou shalt not kill. To the tee? Yet we have an enormous military? So unilateral disarmament because there's no "interpretation" allowed for that very clear directive? That was the statement of the poster I was responding to: NO "interpretation" allowed: To. The. Tee.
    Commandment about Sabbath is the only one which does not have significance in New Testament, as it does not play much role in everyday life. Every other commandment is followed to the tee by devout Christians, they are not left for interpretation. Also remember this change of one commandment came from the Author of the Bible, not some interpreter.

    As it is already said, murder and self defense are two different things.
    The commandments were simplified to love the Lord, and love each other as you love yourself. That is why I'm perplexed when a supposed Christian discriminates against another person. That's not showing that person love. 
    icoco3cornchip
  • Reply 64 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    icoco3 said:
    darelrex said:
    Why does the FBI need Apple's cooperation at all? Can't they just hire hackers to do what they want? And no, they don't need Apple to digitally "sign" their hacked copy of iOS, because they can simply replace that iPhone 5c's ROM chip(s) with altered ROMs that don't care if the OS isn't signed properly. If you have physical possession of the iPhone -- and it's a pre-secure-enclave iPhone -- you can do whatever you want. (That's why Apple came up with the secure enclave.)

    I think the FBI wants Apple to do it for them, simply to set a legal precedent -- a precedent that later might be leveraged into a mandatory built-in backdoor. Without such a backdoor, and with the secure enclave, today's iPhone 6 designs are impenetrable even with the iPhone in your possession, and even by Apple.
    Interesting that they are after Apple to get the data.  Could be a crack showing in the abilities of the NSA.  Why hasn't the FBI talked to them, or did they, and the NSA could not provide anything?
    Could be that the NSA doesn’t want to show its hand. A few wannabe terrorists are not a threat to national security. 
    icoco3cornchip
  • Reply 65 of 71
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    icoco3 said:
    Interesting that they are after Apple to get the data.  Could be a crack showing in the abilities of the NSA.  Why hasn't the FBI talked to them, or did they, and the NSA could not provide anything?
    Could be that the NSA doesn’t want to show its hand. A few wannabe terrorists are not a threat to national security. 
    Yet another twist.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,244member
    icoco3 said:
    tmay said:
    Nonetheless, the Constitution was designed as a document that evolves, so it isn't static by any ideology.
    "Evolves" by amendment but not by some new enlightenment of meaning within the already existing text.
    Yet people still want to interpret the Constitution based on intent, when in suits them and strictly to the verbiage, when it doesn't. Amendment is the Congressional mechanism to alter the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is the other; neither method would pass any purity test, nor should it.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 67 of 71
    jax44jax44 Posts: 79member
    foggyhill said:
    Hope springs eternal doesn't it....
    What does the "hope" thing mean?
    Is that a weird euphemism?
    Harassing Our People Endlessly 
  • Reply 68 of 71
    jimoasejimoase Posts: 47member

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • Reply 69 of 71
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,268member
    so "there are thousands of companies" hacking their software for the benefit of the government?  if so, I would like to know who they are.
  • Reply 70 of 71
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    jfc1138 said:
    True: no violation of that Second Amendment Trademark!, Oh. Wait.
    That infringement is being used in a context that predates said trademarks invalidates any statements made thereon, of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.