genovelle said: The warrant makes no sense. It has been well documented and I’m sure Apple told them they can’t access the phone, so why even make such a legal request when it is moot. The only possible reason is deflection.
My guess is that it's just a matter of procedure. What would people say if they didn't try? I don't think there is much of a mystery around this case, or much need to discover anything, aside from providing some answers to family of the victims.
The big failures in this case were the military in how they handled it (reporting him to civilian authorities), and the failure of our health-care system and VA treatment of mental health. Also, big pharma might be involved too, if the info I've heard is correct.
The guy had a violent history... even more violent than people knew because the military failed to pass the info along. Apparently he tried to get psych counseling, but couldn't afford it (that should be a shame on our veterans care system!). He also supposedly started on some meds... and having had some mild personal experience with this in the past... that can lead to some really bad stuff. Throw in family problems and such, and this isn't exactly rocket-science.
Since US fail to provide a fair healthcare, mental health in this case, and an effective gun control, now the US citizens suffer.
Even Airforce report the crime he committed, he still able to buy guns from private seller or gun shows.
The other odd thing is, everyone around him knows he is psycho and I am sure they have reported to police and the police failed/unable to do anything. This also amazed me.
not trying to start a debate here, just my 2 cents.
This is all very sad and exposes an ingrained weakness in human intellect to refuse to accept that sometimes humans simply do very bad things for no logical or rational rhyme nor reason. Digging into the phone data is never going to change the results of the tragedy that occurred at the hands of a person that had no regard for the sanctity of human life. There is no narrative that will come from the perpetrator’s phone data that will make this scenario any better or prevent a similar scenario from happening again in the future.
I wonder to what extent, if any, that Apple retains or can un-trash previous iCloud backups. Say someone knows they have incriminating evidence in an iCloud backup, would doing a forced backup with clean information make the old information be gone beyond any ability to retrieve.
I wouldn't send any sensitive data to iCloud (or any 'cloud' for that matter).
Soli said: It's an odd world we live in when people come to a tech forum where change is constant and then rally against anyone that is "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."
Note: Two completely different things though. All 'progress' is not equal, or related to technological advance. Also, science or technological advance might make discoveries and advancements, but tell us nothing about how the outcome should be used. That is the realm of philosophy and ethics. That's why the term 'progressive' is so dangerous, as it is a loaded term. To quote C.S. Lewis: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
anton zuykov said: 1. You are confusing shame with legality. That is not good.
Exactly, legality or even culturally shameful, and moral or right, can be completely different things.
They need to outlaw encryption ASAP. And any company that refuses to comply should be put out of business and their top management arrested and jailed.
Troll, or just someone who hasn't put more than 1/2 second thought into it?
steven n. said: Apple has some level of information with meta dat for example. While the content of an iMessage is encrypted, the source and destination needs to be known by Apple since iMessage (as I understand it) is not peer to peer but goes through the iCloud servers for delivery. So Apple should know things like “on Oct 24 at 12:34:23, an iMessage of length 2308 bytes was delivered to account B”. The LEOs/FBI could (potentially) then get the content from Account B.
I think I trust Apple on this one, but note that certain 3-letter orgs have been advocating 'end-to-end' encryption (and marketing it as such) where that means between parties, but where it gets decrypted by the services in the middle. The question is, who we trust ISN'T complying.
viclauyyc said: Since US fail to provide a fair healthcare, mental health in this case, and an effective gun control, now the US citizens suffer.
Even Airforce report the crime he committed, he still able to buy guns from private seller or gun shows.
If the USA had 'effective gun control' it's quite likely he'd still have gotten the guns, quite possibly from a private seller. In fact, once again, the regulations were in place to stop him from legally attaining one, and they failed. The real crime (aside from what he did) is the failed medical system, especially in regard to veterans. And, neither major political party are really trying to fix this problem.
This is all very sad and exposes an ingrained weakness in human intellect to refuse to accept that sometimes humans simply do very bad things for no logical or rational rhyme nor reason. Digging into the phone data is never going to change the results of the tragedy that occurred at the hands of a person that had no regard for the sanctity of human life. There is no narrative that will come from the perpetrator’s phone data that will make this scenario any better or prevent a similar scenario from happening again in the future.
Agreed. I think the majority of the population no longer have much of a clue about either human nature, or how terribly things can escalate when you heap additional things on top of that. And a good amount of the 'progress' in the form of societal changes that underly the increase in this kind of stuff would be supported by the average voter. While they might not get the connections, we as a society, have been asking for this future.
AppleInsider said: [...] The iPhone was at some point flown out to an FBI lab in Quantico, Va., but without success.
That surprises me. Flights are rather commonplace now, and a phone is not particularly tricky cargo, so it's strange that flying the phone to an FBI lab was unsuccessful.
My point, though, was that some of these drugs are extremely dangerous
It's not that simple. A drug that has a negative affect on you may be a perfect solution for me. Brain chemistry differs from person to person, as do the circumstances causing the disorder.
The situation with mental health drugs is not all that different than antibiotics. There are a lot of them, and sometimes a certain one doesn't work in a certain situation, even though all our research suggests it should.
(And, it's amazing the number of these and other violent incidents have some kind of pharma introduction or change in their history.... we'll just not hear that emphasized because big-pharma pays far to much to the media outlets.)
That's leaning a little too far towards tinfoil hat, in my opinion. What you don't hear about in the media is the hundreds of thousands of people who successfully treat disorders with drugs. You only hear about the one-in-a-million cases where a drug caused a reaction. People have adverse reactions to other kinds of drugs too. I'm not defending the pharmaceutical industry, I'm just saying that we need to keep some perspective. Outcomes weigh very, very, very heavily to the positive. One might even argue overwhelmingly so.
In my own experience, a doc talked me into trying a SSRI several years back, and I literally felt an almost out of body experience of observing myself becoming irritated and angry way out of proportion... like the onset of being out of control. It scared the heck out of me and I stopped cold-turkey... which led to a week or so of nasty side-effects.
Yup. Sorry you had to experience that. There does appear to be a risk of that happening.
I'm neither a doctor nor a pharmacist, but I am a patient being successfully treated with medication. Immediately after being diagnosed my doctor and I experimented with a few drugs before we settled on one that was a good fit. Sadly, sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- the affects can be nasty. Supervision and support during that phase of treatment is critical.
I was lucky in that I had only varying degrees of effectiveness and comparatively mild side effects to deal with. I can't say how I would have responded if I'd had an experience like yours, but I'm glad I didn't because finding the right medication has allowed me to enjoy a happy, normal life. I can't imagine what the last 30+ years would have been like without medication controlling the symptoms.
In the beginning I told my doctor that I didn't want to take pills for the rest of my life. He asked if I would feel the same way about insulin? Sometimes an organism develops a defect that alters organ chemistry. Like diabetes. We simply correct the chemical imbalance with drugs. Why there's some stigma when the affected organ is the brain but not the pancreas is an issue we need to address socially.
It's not that simple. A drug that has a negative affect on you may be a perfect solution for me.
...
That's leaning a little too far towards tinfoil hat, in my opinion. What you don't hear about in the media is the hundreds of thousands of people who successfully treat disorders with drugs. You only hear about the one-in-a-million cases where a drug caused a reaction. People have adverse reactions to other kinds of drugs too. I'm not defending the pharmaceutical industry, I'm just saying that we need to keep some perspective. Outcomes weigh very, very, very heavily to the positive. One might even argue overwhelmingly so.
...
Yup. Sorry you had to experience that. There does appear to be a risk of that happening. ... Sadly, sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- the affects can be nasty. Supervision and support during that phase of treatment is critical.
... In the beginning I told my doctor that I didn't want to take pills for the rest of my life. He asked if I would feel the same way about insulin? Sometimes an organism develops a defect that alters organ chemistry. Like diabetes. We simply correct the chemical imbalance with drugs. Why there's some stigma when the affected organ is the brain but not the pancreas is an issue we need to address socially.
I somewhat agree with you. The problem is that I think it's more varied in effect/impact than we'd like to think. Yes, they do seem to help many people. But, what if when it goes badly, a bunch of people get hurt? And, while you say it's too 'tinfoil' it's something I've been noticing more and more in these stories. Possibly, just a coincidence, but something to keep an eye on. And... the pharma companies know it, as if you read the pages and pages of fine print, it actually talks about the kind of reaction I had (and the doc certainly didn't explain that when prescribing either).
And, I agree with you about how we view mental health and the stigma.... and how backwards that is. But, I also recognize that we don't understand impacts on brain chemistry (at least the more immediate ones) as well as we understand insulin levels. Also, there are a number of alternative ways of helping various situations, as well as potential underlying causes that are missed because of being too quick to prescribe some of these drugs. (I also know some about that, as in a roundabout way in trying to help my son, I've stumbled across a ton of info on nutrition, diet, and other solutions to problems 'modern medicine' doesn't really know what to do with, or handles quite badly.)
It isn't an all or nothing I'm advocating... but I also don't think it's exactly a best informed or fair industry either. Some tinfoil is warranted, IMO. (As an aside, we'd rarely need insulin if it weren't for some bad science that the medical profession and governments swallowed hook, line, and sinker.)
Also, it is helpful to remember that “iCloud data” doesn’t include much either, since it is also encrypted. Things like WHEN an email was sent or a call was made, to an address or number might be available, but not the content of the message/email/call.
Incorrect. Since you can change your iCloud password and restore from backup, Apple can change your iCloud password and access all of the data in your backup. That data isn't device specific encrypted since you can restore to another device. Apple has full access to icloud backups.
They need to outlaw encryption ASAP. And any company that refuses to comply should be put out of business and their top management arrested and jailed.
They need to outlaw guns ASAP. And any company that refuses to comply should be put out of business and their top management arrested and jailed.
Blind obedience to government... “If I don’t load these Jews into the cattle car, I’ll be arrested and jailed.”
Besides that, I totally disagree with the premise. It seems increasingly to be the case that people with nothing to be ashamed of, do have something to fear. The thought-police have leapt into action, and you can be in pretty big trouble for not holding the right views. And, the more out of control the government gets, the bigger that problem is going to be.
Not only individuals over the ages but whole sections of various societies who had lived law-abiding lives were subjected to unbelievable terrors because, oh look, the rules had changed. Makes me so .... angry when I hear "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Ignorant statement.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
The warrant makes no sense. It has been well documented and I’m sure Apple told them they can’t access the phone, so why even make such a legal request when it is moot. The only possible reason is deflection.
Anyone who has had any type of career knows CYA (cover your ass).
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
The warrant makes no sense. It has been well documented and I’m sure Apple told them they can’t access the phone, so why even make such a legal request when it is moot. The only possible reason is deflection.
Anyone who has had any type of career knows CYA (cover your ass).
Yep. There’s a lot of that in offices everywhere. This ‘request’ also gives them political cover.
The problem isn’t that crazy people have access to encrypted iPhones... The problem is that crazy people have access to guns.
He shouldn't have had access to guns. The USAF made a huge mistake. Had they reported the domestic issues, he would have been denied trying to purchase weapons.
The digital domain should be no different than the physical domain. The authorities should have access to any personal information for the purposes of a criminal investigation, when authorized by a judge for special circumstances, like this warrant. They should be able to go through your closets and crawl spaces. They should be able to go through any digital space for files and digital fingerprints and tracks and trails of digital conversations. Those who have nothing to be ashamed of have nothing to fear.
Sounds like a typical conservative 'sell your rights away' 1984 comment if I ever heard one.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
If there's anything in his iCloud account. There's not much in my iCloud account aside from synching on contacts and calendars. I keep about 10 files out there for reference when I don't have my computer. Since I still use Outlook for mail, there's no true mail sync.
Authorities always think they're going to find something magically useful, but I doubt that's the case. If the person was an idiot, maybe he wrote an email to someone that displayed anger issues, but especially in this case, where it's apparent that this was a family dispute, they're not going to find any conspiracy.
Those who have nothing to be ashamed of have nothing to fear.
I think that's a quite naive position. According to a 2012 report, over 2000 wrongfully convicted people have been exonerated with DNA evidence. I've never broken a criminal law in my life and I don't even get traffic tickets. But I would never let any law enforcement search my belongings without a search warrant. For one thing, law enforcement can lie to you. They can tell you they're looking for one thing and are actually looking for another or they can tell you that they'll let you go if you just answer a few questions when they have no intention of doing so. In addition, there have been plenty of instances of planted evidence - there have been recent cases in Philadelphia where the cops were stupid enough to video their own corruption.
Q: Is encryption legal? A: Yes. End of discussion.
True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.
if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design. Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.
That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.
Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.
If there's anything in his iCloud account. There's not much in my iCloud account aside from synching on contacts and calendars. I keep about 10 files out there for reference when I don't have my computer. Since I still use Outlook for mail, there's no true mail sync.
Authorities always think they're going to find something magically useful, but I doubt that's the case. If the person was an idiot, maybe he wrote an email to someone that displayed anger issues, but especially in this case, where it's apparent that this was a family dispute, they're not going to find any conspiracy.
It could also contain his iOS backups, which don’t have the device limitations to unencrypt.
The problem isn’t that crazy people have access to encrypted iPhones... The problem is that crazy people have access to guns.
He shouldn't have had access to guns. The USAF made a huge mistake. Had they reported the domestic issues, he would have been denied trying to purchase weapons.
The problem isn’t that crazy people have access to encrypted iPhones... The problem is that crazy people have access to guns.
He shouldn't have had access to guns. The USAF made a huge mistake. Had they reported the domestic issues, he would have been denied trying to purchase weapons.
Does that Include private sellers and gun shows?
I'm pro gun but I do think everyone purchasing a weapon requires a background check. I don't know all state laws, but here in California, private sales have to be completed at a licensed firearms dealer so a background check is done. The requirement is the same at guns shows here as well. That should be a nationwide requirement imo.
The digital domain should be no different than the physical domain. The authorities should have access to any personal information for the purposes of a criminal investigation, when authorized by a judge for special circumstances, like this warrant. They should be able to go through your closets and crawl spaces. They should be able to go through any digital space for files and digital fingerprints and tracks and trails of digital conversations. Those who have nothing to be ashamed of have nothing to fear.
Sounds like a typical conservative 'sell your rights away' 1984 comment if I ever heard one.
Must anyone REALLY be reminded at this point that it was the previous administration behind the demand that Apple offer a backdoor to the iPhone? Wake up!
They need to outlaw encryption ASAP. And any company that refuses to comply should be put out of business and their top management arrested and jailed.
I hope that's sarcasm!!! If not you're completely dumb. You know this website is encrypted as is a growing amount of the Internet. Because of FRAUD from criminals. Maybe your bank can stop using Encryption.
Tell me, if the U.S. outlaws Encryption and now 99.99% of the general public who is good have no protection from all the Criminals. It's open season on all of us and our money. Our pictures, anything of any value or that can be used against us. All the while any criminal with half a brain can just get an Android phone and install any number of 3rd party encryption software onto it. No backdoors or anything. Most Encryption software these days is made outside of the U.S.!!!
Never have the Police gotten every last bit of info. Looking at a Terrorist phone after the fact does what? In general, the phones are wiped or Destroyed. BUT if there's any info on it, what is it going to do? Looking at the info after the fact didn't stop it from happening in the first place. There's no way to stop a single person from going out and killing a bunch of people. Waiting around for the police to show up is too little too late. That means an armed population. People can put a stop to the shooter much quicker.
The simple fact is, people have been murdering people since right from the start, thousands of years ago. That is never going to change. Lots of sick people in this world.
I would rather security be extremely high so that the 99.99% of us who are normal people who need their stuff protected, can live with the minor group of criminals also. At least everyone else is protected. have to take some of the bad with the good. The police,... You watch on youtube, PIG is well deserved. They all LIE!!! The few good stand there while the bad PIG does their criminal act on people. Makes the good one just as BAD. That's the thin blue line for ya.
Comments
Even Airforce report the crime he committed, he still able to buy guns from private seller or gun shows.
The other odd thing is, everyone around him knows he is psycho and I am sure they have reported to police and the police failed/unable to do anything. This also amazed me.
not trying to start a debate here, just my 2 cents.
Note: Two completely different things though. All 'progress' is not equal, or related to technological advance. Also, science or technological advance might make discoveries and advancements, but tell us nothing about how the outcome should be used. That is the realm of philosophy and ethics. That's why the term 'progressive' is so dangerous, as it is a loaded term. To quote C.S. Lewis: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
Exactly, legality or even culturally shameful, and moral or right, can be completely different things.
Troll, or just someone who hasn't put more than 1/2 second thought into it?
I think I trust Apple on this one, but note that certain 3-letter orgs have been advocating 'end-to-end' encryption (and marketing it as such) where that means between parties, but where it gets decrypted by the services in the middle. The question is, who we trust ISN'T complying.
If the USA had 'effective gun control' it's quite likely he'd still have gotten the guns, quite possibly from a private seller. In fact, once again, the regulations were in place to stop him from legally attaining one, and they failed. The real crime (aside from what he did) is the failed medical system, especially in regard to veterans. And, neither major political party are really trying to fix this problem.
Agreed. I think the majority of the population no longer have much of a clue about either human nature, or how terribly things can escalate when you heap additional things on top of that. And a good amount of the 'progress' in the form of societal changes that underly the increase in this kind of stuff would be supported by the average voter. While they might not get the connections, we as a society, have been asking for this future.
The situation with mental health drugs is not all that different than antibiotics. There are a lot of them, and sometimes a certain one doesn't work in a certain situation, even though all our research suggests it should.
That's leaning a little too far towards tinfoil hat, in my opinion. What you don't hear about in the media is the hundreds of thousands of people who successfully treat disorders with drugs. You only hear about the one-in-a-million cases where a drug caused a reaction. People have adverse reactions to other kinds of drugs too. I'm not defending the pharmaceutical industry, I'm just saying that we need to keep some perspective. Outcomes weigh very, very, very heavily to the positive. One might even argue overwhelmingly so.
Yup. Sorry you had to experience that. There does appear to be a risk of that happening.
I'm neither a doctor nor a pharmacist, but I am a patient being successfully treated with medication. Immediately after being diagnosed my doctor and I experimented with a few drugs before we settled on one that was a good fit. Sadly, sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- the affects can be nasty. Supervision and support during that phase of treatment is critical.
I was lucky in that I had only varying degrees of effectiveness and comparatively mild side effects to deal with. I can't say how I would have responded if I'd had an experience like yours, but I'm glad I didn't because finding the right medication has allowed me to enjoy a happy, normal life. I can't imagine what the last 30+ years would have been like without medication controlling the symptoms.
In the beginning I told my doctor that I didn't want to take pills for the rest of my life. He asked if I would feel the same way about insulin? Sometimes an organism develops a defect that alters organ chemistry. Like diabetes. We simply correct the chemical imbalance with drugs. Why there's some stigma when the affected organ is the brain but not the pancreas is an issue we need to address socially.
And, I agree with you about how we view mental health and the stigma.... and how backwards that is. But, I also recognize that we don't understand impacts on brain chemistry (at least the more immediate ones) as well as we understand insulin levels. Also, there are a number of alternative ways of helping various situations, as well as potential underlying causes that are missed because of being too quick to prescribe some of these drugs. (I also know some about that, as in a roundabout way in trying to help my son, I've stumbled across a ton of info on nutrition, diet, and other solutions to problems 'modern medicine' doesn't really know what to do with, or handles quite badly.)
It isn't an all or nothing I'm advocating... but I also don't think it's exactly a best informed or fair industry either. Some tinfoil is warranted, IMO. (As an aside, we'd rarely need insulin if it weren't for some bad science that the medical profession and governments swallowed hook, line, and sinker.)
Blind obedience to government... “If I don’t load these Jews into the cattle car, I’ll be arrested and jailed.”
Authorities always think they're going to find something magically useful, but I doubt that's the case. If the person was an idiot, maybe he wrote an email to someone that displayed anger issues, but especially in this case, where it's apparent that this was a family dispute, they're not going to find any conspiracy.
I think that's a quite naive position. According to a 2012 report, over 2000 wrongfully convicted people have been exonerated with DNA evidence. I've never broken a criminal law in my life and I don't even get traffic tickets. But I would never let any law enforcement search my belongings without a search warrant. For one thing, law enforcement can lie to you. They can tell you they're looking for one thing and are actually looking for another or they can tell you that they'll let you go if you just answer a few questions when they have no intention of doing so. In addition, there have been plenty of instances of planted evidence - there have been recent cases in Philadelphia where the cops were stupid enough to video their own corruption.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/apple-ceo-tim-cook-blasts-encryption-backdoors/
Tell me, if the U.S. outlaws Encryption and now 99.99% of the general public who is good have no protection from all the Criminals. It's open season on all of us and our money. Our pictures, anything of any value or that can be used against us. All the while any criminal with half a brain can just get an Android phone and install any number of 3rd party encryption software onto it. No backdoors or anything. Most Encryption software these days is made outside of the U.S.!!!
Never have the Police gotten every last bit of info. Looking at a Terrorist phone after the fact does what? In general, the phones are wiped or Destroyed. BUT if there's any info on it, what is it going to do? Looking at the info after the fact didn't stop it from happening in the first place. There's no way to stop a single person from going out and killing a bunch of people. Waiting around for the police to show up is too little too late. That means an armed population. People can put a stop to the shooter much quicker.
The simple fact is, people have been murdering people since right from the start, thousands of years ago. That is never going to change. Lots of sick people in this world.
I would rather security be extremely high so that the 99.99% of us who are normal people who need their stuff protected, can live with the minor group of criminals also. At least everyone else is protected. have to take some of the bad with the good. The police,... You watch on youtube, PIG is well deserved. They all LIE!!! The few good stand there while the bad PIG does their criminal act on people. Makes the good one just as BAD. That's the thin blue line for ya.