freerange

Sir_Turkey said:

sog35 said:

What the FBI wanted Apple to do was a software hack.  With software hacks you can access phones WITHOUT possession.  And with a backdoor you can access MILLIONS of phones at the same time. In your home. IN your bedroom. That is what I'm afraid of.

Why does it matter to you if the FBI can access private data on suspicion of criminal actively ? Why are you "afraid" ?

Oh clueless one.... If you are going to post, try to keep up. A software hack/backdoor jeopardizes EVERYONE's iPhone, and therefor your most private information making us vulnerable to all kinds of malfeasance, including identity theft and financial loss, and even much worse. That should scare the shit out of you.

It is time for us all to stand up to the government and demand that they do their job with the resources they have rather than forcing companies to rewrite their software and pose a threat to all. We have been spending 100's of BILLIONS on national security since 9/11. No one ever said it is our role to make their job as easy for them as possible, at the expense of our own freedoms and personal security. If they can't manage to do their jobs with the resources they have then we should look for new leaders to replace them. Period.

mrich said:

We wouldn't be having this conversation if a) such encryption had existed on 9/11 and b) on 9/12 the FBI had asked Apple to let it into any suspect phones. Steve Jobs or Tim Cook would have opened them up with their tongues, because the enormity of the crime demanded it. They would have looked like co-conspirators with mass murderers in the eyes of the whole world if they had made then the same argument Cook et al. are making now. Such noble half-baked and immature statements as the ones made above are only possible because merely 16 persons were murdered in San Bernardino. Yes, the hard truth about abstract moral principles is that they have to be put into action in the real world in the context of real human lives, and that changes the weight and heft of the arguments. If it had been 3,000 people who had been murdered in California rather than a *mere* 16, we wouldn't be hearing these arguments. So that begs the question: Just how many mass murder victims is Apple willing to tolerate? How many are we the public willing to tolerate before we insist that Apple co-operate in keeping us safe? Or is the difference in the nature of the weapons used? Are assault rifle murders acceptable, while murders caused by airplanes are not? How about a poison gas attack, or a dirty bomb? Where is the line between an acceptable number of murders and an intolerable number?

Please go take your stupidity somewhere else, like maybe back to school so you can get yourself a good education. Then you might actually be able to understand the principle issues being discussed. What do you think our security agencies did BEFORE smartphones? That's right, they did their jobs with the resources they had. No matter how hard it was. Things like putting assets in the field, bugging devices, surveillance, etc. and that is exactly what we should expect of them now, without jeprodizing every single holder of a smartphone, by every single government and hacker out there. We are spending 100's of BILLIONS of dollars every year on national security. If they can't do their job with the resources they have then maybe it's time to put new people in charge. And your absolutely moronic comment about insisting that "Apple cooperate in keeping us safe" shows just how far you have your head up your posterior. It is NOT Apple's job to keep us safe. It is the government's. And you are obviously ignorant of the fact that Apple did cooperate as soon as asked by giving the FBI all the data they had, including from the previous backup of the device, as well as extensive and ongoing technical support. The government also already has all the phone records from the device. This is a totally bullshit attempt by the FBI to set a legal precedent to get into any device anytime they want, while at the same time jeopardizing the security of each and every one of us. Period.

jmoore5196 said:

One imagines Sheriff Judd is also a Donald Trump supporter.

Sounds more like Cruz support, and Cruz is more dangerous than Trump!

thewhitefalcon said:

jungmark said:

Is it too late to move to Florida and vote against this jackass in the primaries? 

Shouldn't have to worry. The RNC has realized the situation they're in and they've decided Cruz is the best hope. Kasich is now focusing only on Ohio, Rubio only on Florida, and the campaigns are telling how to vote to ensure Trump doesn't get the nomination. 

I hate to say this, because the guy is not fit to be president, but Cruz would be an even worse choice. The fact that these two idiots are the Republican front runners says a lot about the pathetic condition of the party. The ongoing dumbing down of America continues, unabated.