T.j.p.

cali said:

If true, doesn't this imitation goods manufacturer learn?

rushing a product to beat Apple doesn't work.

Sure it does, Samsung was so efficient producing a great fire starter that Apple abandoned their efforts with the Note 7 introduction. 

But seriously Samsung has taken Apple patent scraping to new levels with each Galaxy or Note introduced, from utility patents to design patents, then Samsung rushes a model out to have what they can reasonably predict are Apples features for future phones (or pad or watches). This results in Apple then seeing Samsung and spending huge amounts of money defending their patents ... They have to or there would be a bunch of identi-clones in large enough numbers to pollute the market.

One feature not mentioned... If you use a macbook while out and about, and normally use multiple monitors on the desk, the iPad Pro 12.9 along with the "Duet" app enables a pretty seamless dual display while traveling. If you do extensive editing between multiple documents, do any film related work, or do software development the change to having an easy dual display while traveling is amazing. The productivity is much better than switching from multiple monitors to a single laptop display. 

This is blatantly unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow creation of laws to abrogate due process, or compel work from a company or individual. Additionally it will spawn a small industry making private apps that do secure communications without a backdoor. Pure and simple this is governmental overreach. And a dangerous intrusion into personal privacy. Any intentional backdoor can be exploited. Apple has not been incrementally improving the technology for protecting the iOS users privacy on a whim. It is an answer to previous weaknesses that have been exploited. 

I propose a fine of 25% of a congress members salary, or of the presidential salary, where the fine is not tax deductible, for every law or sections of law found unconstitutional that they voted the affirmative for passage or signed into law, or enacted as an executive order, if it becomes effective. Further mandate that an amendment be proposed to the states to amend the approval process for any bills to pass through a committee of 9 constitutional scholars and receive a 2/3 vote of that body before any legislation can become effective. The Supreme Court retains its ability of course for constitutional interpretation exercised now.

Stop the intrusions into our liberties. Call your representatives in government and demand they adhere to the constitution and not practice the overreach that is so common now. We only have one USA, help preserve it. 

"It's just that I have a basic fundamental belief this is very important and that no American company should be above the law," Feinstein said regarding her proposal.

Well, please understand Feinstein, the Constitution grants the Federal government a limited ability to interact with "the people". It in no way grants rights to the people, they already have all of them. it allows small intrusions into them. People have a right to privacy. It is innate. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government has the ability to preemptively violate that privacy. Any such legislation you propose is blatantly unconstitutional. Will the government accept financial responsibility for breaches? They are inevitable.

Additionally it is unrealistic. It is as functional as saying all cars must be manufactured with a catalytic converter. And applying it to electric cars as well. And race cars. And failing to recognize that individuals can purchase a bypass pipe and install it. The vast majority won't bother of course. But the outlaws will. Similarly if a device has a backdoor built into it, third parties will just create standalone programs that render the built-in security moot by providing their own security. And it will be peer to peer unbreakable within reasonable timeframes. Such apps exist now. The proposed legislation does nothing to prevent their use or creation. It is pure politics where the politicians argue only for the purpose of personal political gain, not for safeguarding the public in any way. And it shows a contempt for the people, and contempt for the constitution. It is pure overreach.

This is the uninformed attack on what they don't understand. The Clipper chip failed because it had backdoors encryption with key escrow with the government. The Clipper chip key exchange protocol was found to be very flawed and allowed key recovery of the backdoors key by brute force over a sixteen bit field. Next up, Jupiter networks, a government supplier and with a backdoors in their equipment. Now discovered. That would be the network switches used in many government network systems. Now with publicly disclosed accounts that allow management of the switches. So, any backdoors that law enforcement can marginally justify. They are vectors for converting real security into security theatre. That is to say, they cause a system that as secure to become insecure. And they potentially extend to the business and other trade secret information, personal details, calendar events, and more, now exposed to the government at traffic stops to more general offenses. Constitutionally the US enjoys a specific protection for search and seizure. It takes due process to relax that protection and allow the government to intrude. With a backdoors built in, law enforcement will take advantage. And much worse, your presumed private details will be available through hacking by malicious actors. Eve never had it so good.