joogabah

lkrupp said:

So we as a society must accept the fact that if we want to remain free a good number of us must be prepared to die in terrorist attacks? Is that what this argument boils down to? 

— You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

— You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

— You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

—You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

— You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html

gatorguy said:

zone said:

No probable cause, no warrant, no way!

This is how the system is set up and if they want in then they need to do it legally. It's that simple. 

Why do people give away their freedoms and rights for FAKE security? The Terrorist Threat in almost nonexistent and not worth your freedoms and our money. We spend billions for security to protect us from absolutely nothing when it comes to this statistically. It's all FAKE and agenda driven. Here a list of thing that REALLY kill American's so maybe we should ban these things. How many people die from T in the USA each year? Almost none. Only 30 people have died from terrorism since 2001. More Americans have died from squirrel and raccoon attacks than have died from terrorism since 9/11.

Let's do the math... 30 people since 9/11 is less than 2 people a year. If you include 9/11 it's 178 a year. Still way less...


- Slip and Falls "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injury and over 17, 000 people die in the U.S. annually because of these injuries."

- Bicycles "In 2015 in the United States, over 1,000 bicyclists died and there were almost 467,000 bicycle-related injuries."

- 300,000 Americans die of obesity every year.

- 40,000 Americans per year die of car accidents.

- 550,000 Americans per year die of cancer.

- Drowning 2000

- Poisoning 39,000

- Fires 2700

Chocking 2500

So sad!

No idea where you got your figures. it amounts to fake math. Nearly 50 were killed in the Pulse Nightclub attack alone. Your figure is so ridiculously far off-base it's not even worth considering in your argument.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

But for giggles even if you were close (it is not) the relative sparseness of major events in the US as compared to Europe for instance is testament to the excellent work of our policing agencies (FBI/CIA/NSA/Local agencies) made possible by the tools they have available to them. You think it would improve things to deny them the tools? 

EsquireCats said:

The fundamental flaw with this and all similar legislation: it does absolutely nothing to stop anyone from using encryption. Encryption is mathematics, it can't be outlawed. It is utterly trivial to "roll your own" encrypted messaging system. All that these laws do is make it easier for the government to snoop on ordinary citizens, something which governments have historically been eager to do. Worse still many of the terrorist attacks which have utilised messaging systems did not even use encrypted services yet the various governments still didn't see them coming.

The solution to terrorism has never, and will never be, a game of whack-a-mole with messaging services.

CelTan said:

When will people understand that less privacy does not mean more safety?
I had this discussion this week twice and each time the terrorist card was played:
"If the government reading my iMessage just stops 1 terror attack then I am happy to give up my privacy!" 
Great in theory and if the magic would exist to keep it "good governments" only and if I would believe it would stop a single incident, then I may even be persuaded.

Herein lies the tri-fold issue:
1. This magic does not exist - it will get out and will get exploited. It's either total encryption or none
2. There are not so good governments, and you can't really say: Australia is nice, but I don't give it to North Korea (anybody having issues with North Korea reading their communications? 
3. Once all the big messaging providers comply, the 'bad guys' will just make their own little encryption up and load it on their android cheap phones. - IE: They can still communicate 'securely' while the rest of the 'good people' are exposed.

Funny enough the "I don't need privacy" people I talked to did not understand any of the above points.

boltsfan17 said:

In the past Apple has tried to deter developers from using apps as a means of political expression, for instance rejecting apps about sweatshops or the Syrian civil war. The company could conceivably be loosening its philosophy in this area, or simply in respect to Metadata, which is sometimes critical of drone strikes but typically doesn't express an overt point of view.

Sometimes critical? Josh Begley is always critical of drone strikes. Using the word carnage to describe the killing of 30 terrorists does express an overt point of view.