tenly

It doesn't matter if it would take 6 people 2 weeks to create the fix or if it would take 1 person half a day to do it, or if it would take 1,000 people 6 months to do it.  

The issue is that the government does not have the right to compel a corporation to create a specific new thing.  Or do they?  Really that's the only question that needs to be answered, isn't it?

freerange said:

tenly said:

I'm disgusted by the fear-mongering on both sides of this argument.  I really need to stop reading the comments on these FBI vs Apple articles.  Doing so gives me heartburn!

For example - this article implies that *IF* the government is successful here, then one day they *may* have the ability to secretly turn on your camera and microphone.  That's a true statement - but it's misleading in that it implies that if Apple wins this fight, it protects us from the FBI directly accessing our cameras in the future.

In reality, they are not really related at all.  The FBI will go after the camera and microphone access in the future regardless of what happens here.  Win or lose in this particular case doesn't mean much as far as the future is concerned.  This is one of the first battles in what will be a very long war.  A loss will hardly slow down the FBI.  They'll be back - again and again - trying different angles - trying the same angles in different courts.  Other countries will definitely join in making demands of their own. Settle in folks.  This privacy and security issue is one that will be here for a very, VERY long time.

So then stop reading them, as you obviously lack the understanding of the content. It is quite obvious that if the government can compel Apple by court order, or legal mandate, to write software to make the phone less secure, then that opens up the door for them to force tech companies to provide additional software that obviates the security of the device, including steaming content live camera and audio. They are already able to do this through the phone network so why would they stop with just this one request? The logic is quite obvious and true. Especially when you have so many suppressive involved in our government and law enforcement. 

You're the one who's lacking understanding - did you read my entire post or only the bit that you quoted?

I acknowledged that its true that a loss to the FBI could result in all the bad things that are mentioned.  What I was stating is that a victory against the FBI does not in any way eliminate the possibility of them!  If they can't use the all writs act - they will find another angle and come at our data again and again and again.  They will pursue and champion new legislation and possibly even constitutional amendments to get what they want.  They will use every terrorist attack that occurs and the ones they are able to stop to garner more and more support for them to monitor every of all the time.  A victory simply slows them down.  They will never stop trying to get access to our data - and this fight is just one of many to come.

I'm not at all saying that this fight is not important.  It's very important.  A loss to the FBI will most certainly result in them coming back and asking for more and more - but so will a victory!  We are in a no-win situation. We think that we are fighting to preserve our rights to privacy, but how and when can we declare victory?  We can't.  The fight will never be over because the FBI and others will just keep coming.  I wish I was just being overly cynical - because it's going to become a very scary world when they finally get what they're asking for.  It looks like George Orwell got it right - he was just a few decades off as far as his timeframe was concerned.

Am I just being overly cynical?  Is there a way to actually WIN this fight permanently?

I'm disgusted by the fear-mongering on both sides of this argument.  I really need to stop reading the comments on these FBI vs Apple articles.  Doing so gives me heartburn!

For example - this article implies that *IF* the government is successful here, then one day they *may* have the ability to secretly turn on your camera and microphone.  That's a true statement - but it's misleading in that it implies that if Apple wins this fight, it protects us from the FBI directly accessing our cameras in the future.

In reality, they are not really related at all.  The FBI will go after the camera and microphone access in the future regardless of what happens here.  Win or lose in this particular case doesn't mean much as far as the future is concerned.  This is one of the first battles in what will be a very long war.  A loss will hardly slow down the FBI.  They'll be back - again and again - trying different angles - trying the same angles in different courts.  Other countries will definitely join in making demands of their own. Settle in folks.  This privacy and security issue is one that will be here for a very, VERY long time.

anantksundaram said:

I really get worried about our liberties when major corporations (and I honestly don't care what their motivations are or what their politics is) try to influence social and political choices. It's hard enough for the average Joe/Jill to get his/her 0.5¢ into the political process without all this undue power and influence.... 

LOL!  Show me an election that occurred in the last 50 years where major corporations haven't gotten involved!  And as long as they are not breaking any laws - why shouldn't they shine a light on candidates they feel would be good for the country or bad for the country?  It's not like they are trying to rig the election - they are simply going to express an alternate viewpoint - or possibly expose lies and double-speak from a candidate they dislike.

If a voters opinion can be so easily swayed by the involvement of a major corporation - what makes you so sure that they had the right opinion to start with?  Why is it cause for concern that some corporations publish their opinion of a candidate?  There is already so much propaganda out there - good and bad - for all candidates.  How can you trust the individual voters to sift through all of it and make the right choice - but it concerns you greatly when a few corporations add some propaganda to the pile?  Seriously - what difference does it make???

sog35 said:

gatorguy said:

You do apparently since you've decided that the eBooks case is solely responsible for today's stock price dip. The chart comparison I pointed you to should tell you differently. If one goes up or down then barring anything unusual and specific to one of them the other two will do the same (tho by different percentages). That's obvious to even a non-investor like me. IMO Apple is down today because the segment is down, not because SCOTUS won't hear an appeal. 

Why don't you compare last year?
Or the last 2 years?
Or the last 3 years?
Or the last 5 years?

Oh, because it won't follow your mistaken thesis that Google and Apple's stock price move in step.  Get out of here.

Bottom line Apple is down because of this eBooks case.
Google is down because they are overvalued and will go down on many random days.

The NASDAQ is now GREEN, yet Apple is still down $3 billion today. Its time for Tim Cook to stop being an idealist and be a realist.  Stop being stubborn and start paying money to lobbyist, media, Wall STreet, and politicians.  

Newsflash!
-------------
(For immediate release)
Outspoken Apple Insider member SOG35 revises (again) the reason why Apples stock price continues to struggle in the marketplace.  In mid-2015, he claimed that the source of all AAPL woes stemmed from the fact that AAPL was "publicly traded" and should be taken private and claimed that that would somehow create a surge in value for stockholders. Towards the end of 2015, he revised his statement and called for Tim Cook's resignation claiming that Mr Cook should have promoted the company more aggressively to Wall Street investors and further claimed that everything Tim Cook had done at the helm was either "too little" or "too late".  In 2016, it appears that he has once again revised his analysis and has declared that the reason AAPL has a share price that is struggling is due primarily to the fact that Apple does not spend enough time or money lobbying the government!  We expect many posts from Mr Sog35 over the coming weeks and months that reiterate the lobbying angle ad nauseum before he abruptly declares that it is not in fact Apples lobbying policy but it is instead actually something else which is responsible for Apples stock market performance.