EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2953
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4729 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 18 2016 14:32 ticklishmusic wrote: hey corporations are people too, dont be mean. they just happen to be extremely wealthy and powerful and dont come out of vaginas. I know! Haha. Or to misquote the dearly departed Scalia from the document giving rise to the corporations are people meme: Despite the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up, it is far from clear that by the end of the 18th century corporations were despised. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
 | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 18 2016 12:43 xDaunt wrote: And the problem with this premise is that you posit that the personality hate is "irrational." She's earned it. As I have been saying all along, she is not a gifted politician. Never has been. Never will be. She hasn't earned it at all. Utterly dishonest Republican attacks have damaged her image, and since you eat up their talking points you're convinced she's a terrible person. Nothing surprising there. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 18 2016 19:23 Silvanel wrote: The other way of attacking the issue by FBI might be hiring some strong embeded software company to engineer some hardware based solution with taping to processor directly and sending interupts/other commands during execution of Iphone software on processer. But there are multiple problems with this approach 1.MUCH longer 2.MUCH more expansive 3.No gurantee of success 4.Worse for PR 5.Might (i dont really know what FBI can and cant do) not be legal Everything would be much easier with Apple cooperation. this is the obvious rub. but letting terrorists and criminal elements run wild is okay too i guess so we'd rather have that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 18 2016 19:39 Danglars wrote: I know! Haha. Or to misquote the dearly departed Scalia from the document giving rise to the corporations are people meme: this is even worse reasoning than ticklish's post. hilarious this is why i can't take his shit seriously. a fucking argument for return to 18th century 'original' without justification is like lol guys we gotta obey moses. fuck off | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 18 2016 20:38 oneofthem wrote: this is the obvious rub. but letting terrorists and criminal elements run wild is okay too i guess so we'd rather have that. I don't blame you for not knowing that, because I'm assuming US mainstream media wouldn't report on it, but the Paris killers used unencrypted text messages (SMS). If you think for a second that wide spread surveillance helps prevent Muslim terrorism, you're probably the victim of a proper education. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8519 Posts
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/nsa-chief-paris-would-not-have-happened-without-184040933.html | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Of course, the mass data collection is the main reason why everyone is so suspicious of the NSA and FBI, so they sort of did this to themselves. But I do not like the idea of exceptions being given to private corporations and digital constructs they create and sell internationally. If these were bank or medical records or any other piece of evidence, there would be no leg to stand on. I guess I don’t trust Apple any more than I trust the FBI, but the FBI at least is going through due process. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Strong encryption is necessary for governments, businesses, etc. EDIT: To expand a bit. Speaking in generalities; if say, the US government has the ability to break some encryption, then other entities are likely to be able to as well. Same with backdoors, if a backdoor is present then it is present for anyone to use if they know how. It has been touched on a bit, but the legal implications need to be looked at in an international sense as well. If these companies cave to requests from the US government what grounds would they have to deny requests from the Chinese or Russians to give them access to the data of their citizenry? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 18 2016 22:20 DickMcFanny wrote: I don't blame you for not knowing that, because I'm assuming US mainstream media wouldn't report on it, but the Paris killers used unencrypted text messages (SMS). If you think for a second that wide spread surveillance helps prevent Muslim terrorism, you're probably the victim of a proper education. good joke. the incompetence of the europeans didn't even force these guys to the readily available stuff. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: Apple is a US company. They can assist us, but not assist China and Russia. That is fine. I have no problem with them fighting other nations that don’t represent me and I have no influence on. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11508 Posts
It is the logical conclusion of intrusive spying à la NSA. People obviously don't want their privacy infringed upon, and if the government fails to deliver that through laws, at some point they will have to deal with the fact that they can no longer access peoples data even if they have a legitimate reason to do so. Reap what you saw. (Except for the gigantic amounts of data given freely and plastered all over Facebook, of course) I'd be very surprised if there were not already an open source way to encrypt your phone which is not an iphone without any backdoor at all. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On February 18 2016 13:21 xDaunt wrote: But she's having trouble beating Sanders? When her nomination should have been a formality? A great many in the Democratic party have been disappointed by the last 8 years (perhaps Obama did all he could but it certainly wasn't all we wished for) and I think very few of those people want a move to the right. Hillary was rejected in 08 for a reason. I still won't be surprised if she wins I'm behind the Sandman. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On February 18 2016 14:07 Plansix wrote: I am still conflicted. I think the judge should amend the order to Apple is required to unlock the phone, but not required to share the key with the FBI, and they should control it. Its weird that they are able to withhold information/access, but I can't deny a search warrant for my house. Apple cannot simply unlock it. They have routinely provided that service in the past when they have data on the cloud. Apple comply with warrants all the time. Unfortunately in this case the data is stored only on the hard drive of the phone and Apple have no copy of it, nor way of accessing it. What the FBI want Apple to do is write, from scratch, a new OS that has a backdoor and then find a way to update that OS onto the phone. The tool that the FBI want Apple to provide doesn't exist and Apple have no desire to make it exist. If they want Apple to do it they should approach it the same way anyone else who wants a private company to write software for them does. Make them an offer. See how much Apple want to compromise their reputation. Surely there is a number that would outweigh the harm to Apple's reputation and sales. If that number is too high for the FBI, well, they didn't want that information anyway. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On February 18 2016 23:27 Plansix wrote: I respect that. But I don’t trust cooperation any more than I trust governments. They claim to be all about privacy, until someone else in charge and things marketing my personal information is good for their bottom line. They are going to do what is in their best interests and that rarely benefits me. Tim Cook is gay. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if he had a strong ideological conviction on the importance of privacy. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4729 Posts
| ||
| ||
