macwise

volcan said:

macwise said:

So you're saying that congress can make a law which allows government to enter your home and search it anytime you buy a desk, and your argument would be that "Who is forcing you to buy a desk?" Are you really that daft?

No, just pointing out that there is no provision in the Constitution for any of what people are arguing as their rights. The articles are very literal.  Encryption is not mentioned in any way manner or form.

So what?  Sexual assault by police is not specifically mentioned either. Does that mean police have the right to rape you every time they pull you over?  

Saying an inherent right doesn't exist simply because it isn't explicitly listed is about as wrong as it gets when it comes to the purpose and power of the constitution.  

I suppose you don't have the right to free speech on the internet since it wasn't explicitly mentioned in Amendment I.  Sound about right?

volcan said:

macwise said:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable ....

Ok let me stop you right there. Who is forcing you to buy a cell phone? 

So you're saying that congress can make a law which allows government to enter your home and search it anytime you buy a desk, and your argument would be that "Who is forcing you to buy a desk?" Are you really that daft?

jfc1138 said:

ktappe said:

He is quite wrong. It is a decision for the courts, specifically SCOTUS, on whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to be able to search and seize your communications. The government mandating all phones be unencrypted is directly analogous to it mandating all house front doors be kept unlocked; nobody would put up with that, nor should they put up with this. Stephenson is wrong about it being a decision for the people; if the people all wanted something else that was unconstitutional, such as mandated prayer in schools or slavery, they wouldn't get those either. The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is not to cowtow to the whim of the masses, but to protect the rights of oppressed minority.

Not really a mandate of unlocked doors, the 4th specifies a warrant, not no-access ever and the 14th reinforces due-process guarantees..
"Amendment IV

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."

Where the argument might rest is government's rather naive assumption that were a "backdoor" to be included that only they would ever posses a key whose use would be regulated, perhaps, by a 4th amendment compliant warrant.

That's a bullshit argument.  Let me tell you why: NSA, CIA, FBI, BATFE, CPS, Local PD. 

It is clear that government wants only one thing: dead easy access to every aspect of your life at any cost.  It is abundantly clear they don't want access only at the times when they have sufficient reason.  They are TAKING what they want now, and are only upset because the most popular, powerful, and loved company in the world is taking it upon themselves to defend your rights.  Give them an inch, they'll drag your sorry ass behind their M1 Abrams tank for miles, or until you are nothing more than shark bait.  

Your rights will NEVER be asserted by the government, only violated.  It is YOUR job to assert your rights, and you're damn lucky to have a company like Apple who willingly and publicly stands up against the government in helping you realize your deep responsibility in asserting those rights.

ktappe said:

He is quite wrong. It is a decision for the courts, specifically SCOTUS, on whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to be able to search and seize your communications. The government mandating all phones be unencrypted is directly analogous to it mandating all house front doors be kept unlocked; nobody would put up with that, nor should they put up with this. Stephenson is wrong about it being a decision for the people; if the people all wanted something else that was unconstitutional, such as mandated prayer in schools or slavery, they wouldn't get those either. The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is not to cowtow to the whim of the masses, but to protect the rights of oppressed minority.

Courts offer opinions.  They don't make rulings or law.  It is actually up to us to assert our rights, and it is clearly a case that is protected under the 4th: 

"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."

The authorities don't want back doors so they can access the content.  They want it so they can access it without a warrant, or with a broad (e.g. naming 300 million people) warrant.  Law enforcement has argued time and again that a cell phone is not one's "personal effects".  That's bullshit, and any American doing even a dolt's worth of thinking can see that.

You are correct about the nature and extent of laws. We do NOT live in a Democracy, nor do we live in a Representative Democracy (or republic) as many claim.  We live in a Constitutional Republic. This means that we elect representatives to defend our natural rights on our behalf as outlined in (but not limited to) the Bill of Rights, and to ensure the government is operating within the parameters laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America.  It could be 314,999,999 people against the one, but if that one person would have his individual rights trampled by the mob of 315 million, then they are not allowed under the law to act on their whim.

volcan said:

SpamSandwich said:

I agree with Nola. Screw Stephenson. Our rights are inherent and the Constitution is there to PROTECT our individual rights.

Which part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights grants your rights to purchase cell phones that do not have encryption back doors pre-installed?

"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."

- Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Have you really never read the Bill of Rights?