US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2969

On February 20 2016 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


Because if the government told Apple they can't sell me an encrypted phone I would install the encryption myself. The regulation is pointless. Encryption is not hard enough that the government is able to regulate. As several people have already told you in this thread it would turn out worse than prohibition.

On February 20 2016 09:21 Plansix wrote:

They can allow for encrypted phones, just require Apple to keep a key like they used to. The government doesn't' care if you root your phone and install encryption. You are just one person, not all of Iphone owners nation wide.

On February 20 2016 09:13 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Not to be a statist, but I think the government should be able to search wherever it can get a warrant. We have police and the FBI because there really are criminals who do bad things out there. If the government has a warrant, then I want them to be able to search in the box. I am not convinced that having unsearchable boxes is a good idea. I get how it is nice to have something that can never be opened. But I think our collective interest in warranted searches outweights the desire to have something that can never be searched.

// that the "box" here is a phone and it is locked with code doesn't matter, the iPhone might as well be a safety deposit box

On February 20 2016 09:25 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


How would Apple have a key to my encryption? I think you're confused how encryption works.



These boxes already exist. Conversations are privileged when they happen between say a doctor and patient or an attorney and a client.

On February 20 2016 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think the real problem is it will be obvious they weren't paying for the speech.

It takes a special level of disbelief to think that Hillary and her campaign aren't essentially run by lobbyist and wall st donors. If lobbyist and wall st is who you want in charge of our government then I suppose it wouldn't be a problem for someone.

On February 20 2016 09:25 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


How would Apple have a key to my encryption? I think you're confused how encryption works.



These boxes already exist. Conversations are privileged when they happen between say a doctor and patient or an attorney and a client.

On February 20 2016 08:41 Plansix wrote:

Pretty sure they would regulate the encryption, not the phone. Its not like they can't put new encryption on the next OS.

I am not pro regulation, but that is what is going to happen if there is no other way for law enforcement to gain access to the phone. Right now, every single iphone that has evidence for a criminal investigation is potentially locked away forever. No matter what judicial process or order they obtain, not matter the crime, the phone cannot be opened if its locked. If there is no solution, the government will create one.

On February 20 2016 09:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


Is there anything about iPhones that suggests you have a right to privacy so sacrosanct that we will endow with a privilege to block it from becoming evidence? Marital privilege, attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege are legit privileges. I am not seeing anything about iPhones that distinguish them from safety deposit boxes in terms of having a right to be excluded from lawful search.

On February 20 2016 09:30 Plansix wrote:

They used to open phones for the FBI before that were encrypted. They stopped when they redesigned the way it worked around 2014 where they no longer could do it. They appear to be the only company that does this to their phones. And it creates a problem when the FBI has a search warrant, but no one can open the phone, or turn off the software that will cause it to auto delete.

On February 20 2016 10:06 oneofthem wrote:
bloomberg's other virtue is that he is attuned to urban problems particularly housing cost. urban issues are systematically underrepresented but is simply far more important to future of economy as well as majority of the population compared to bullshit social issues in some of these contested states.

Making farmers markets more accessible to Americans in food deserts can boost the number of low-income customers who regularly shop there, and may even offer more promise for improving diets than bringing in traditional grocers. That's according to researchers who looked at what happened when the farmers market in Flint, Mich. — much of which qualifies as a food desert — moved downtown.

Availability of nutritious foods is of particular relevance in Flint, where the city's water system is now infamously contaminated with lead and other toxins. Public health officials there are spreading the word that consuming fruits and vegetables and other nutritious foods high in calcium, iron and Vitamin C can help reduce lead absorption. (Editor's note: We'll have more on those efforts next week.)

Rick Sadler, a public health professor at the Flint campus of Michigan State University, first interviewed shoppers at the Flint Farmers' Market in 2011, seeking to understand the demographics of its customers. Three years later, the market made a controversial move from an industrial area north of the city core — inaccessible to public transit and pedestrians — to a central downtown location across from the bus station. That prompted Sadler to return in 2015, to see if the customer demographics had shifted. They had: At the new location, the market was seeing far more shoppers from the city's poorer neighborhoods.

As Sadler reports in a new study in the journal Applied Geography, in 2011, about 10 percent of the shoppers came from the city's most distressed neighborhoods, but by 2015 it was up to 20 percent. Similarly, less than 1 percent of farmers market patrons had taken the bus there in 2011, but 6 percent had after the move. And while that might not sound like much to New Yorkers, it's significant in Flint, says Sadler, who has also been documenting the city's water crisis. "Flint's nickname is 'Vehicle City'; most people here do drive," he tells us.

An increasing number of shoppers also used the market for general groceries, with 20 percent reporting that as a reason for coming to the market in 2015, compared with 14 percent in 2011. That was particularly marked, says Sadler, among residents who said they had difficulty accessing food: 27 percent of those shoppers visited the market for general groceries, compared with 13 percent of those reporting no difficulty accessing food, he told us.

On February 20 2016 10:08 Nyxisto wrote:


Hasn't NYC one of the highest poverty rates in the US while Bloomberg is busy building giant luxury apartments everywhere?

The debate over whether Canadian-born Ted Cruz is eligible to be US president is moving from the campaign trail to the courtroom.

Lawsuits challenging the Texas Republican’s eligibility for the ballot have been filed in states including Illinois, New York and Alabama.

Fellow candidate Donald Trump has also threatened to sue over the issue.

Cruz and legal experts say he is eligible because his mother was a US citizen when he was born.

The Illinois plaintiff is pharmacist and lawyer Lawrence Joyce. He says he fears if Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, Democrats will get him kicked off the ballot in some states or Cruz will be forced to drop out and Republicans will replace him with a moderate candidate.

Joyce says he backs Ben Carson but is acting independently.

A Cook County judge set a hearing for 1 March on a motion to dismiss the suit filed by Cruz’s lawyer. By then, ballots for Illinois’s 15 March primary will be printed and early voting under way.

"They are the ones who pay a lot of the taxes. They are the ones who spend a lot money in the stores and the restaurants and create a big chunk of our economy,”