GodsByGrace
About
- Username
- GodsByGrace
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 1
Reactions
-
Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal
The problem here is simply this: Once you open the faucet, how, when, and where do you shut it off? Is it opened only when you KNOW, after the fact, that a person is a terrorist? If you KNOW, then you DON"T NEED THE INFORMATION..! If you don't know, then do more homework that doesn't require people or businesses to reveal what they don't want to, and really maybe should not. Then, do we apply it to just terrorism, or any other kind of criminal act? Maybe when you SUSPECT someone may be abusing their children? Or selling business secrets to a competitor? Or maybe just when you suspect they stole a candy bar, or exceeded the speed limit on the way home? What sort of 'crime' fits the bill to qualify for this kind of action? Where does it start and stop? On the surface, it sounds so simple. But sadly, we've seen it all before. This is the kind of faucet that, once opened, freezes, and can never be closed again...though it always seems to be able to be opened farther. I suggest the FBI spend our tax resources on other avenues of finding out what they need to know here, and leave the privacy laws intact. Once those are broken down, the downward spiral has no bottom.