And of course every one of the Republican candidates except Rand Paul also supports this kind of surveillance.
Bernie Sanders opposes it, but I'm guessing you're too partisan to consider him.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act Passes in Senate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bernie Sanders opposes it, but I'm guessing you're too partisan to consider him.
What they are not telling us is this law passed last year in a secret session and this is bringing it to the public now that all manufactures have been forced to comply including Apple with iOS 9.
Have you noticed how this bill mysteriously passes so quickly in the house and senate and will be signed by the pres soon without any vetting or public review. That's cause it's a done deal.
Hummmm I wonder what my iOS 8 iPhone 6 could sell for now without the secret back door? $1000?
Have you noticed how this bill mysteriously passes so quickly in the house and senate and will be signed by the pres soon without any vetting or public review. That's cause it's a done deal.
Hummmm I wonder what my iOS 8 iPhone 6 could sell for now without the secret back door? $1000?
Agreed. And the secret question data mining.. Is not a problem for me. I use the same word to answer my secret questions. Like 'bycicle' - of course that's not my word, but you get the idea. My bank security guy got a big kick when verifying my identity because of a fraud alert. Also makes it easy to keep up.
Nice, get jet lagged before the debate.
I think the frustration is being directed at the wrong people.
Yeah, he asked congress to make it. I doubt he will veto it. But anything could happen.
Wrong? In what way? If people voted for a person, and the person did something that he/she did not promise, then, oh I don't know, vote somebody else to replace that person. You won't get any changes if you keep voting for the same exact people to represent you, regardless of what they do.
I think it's time voters take up some responsibility instead of just whining and pointing fingers. But oh wait, let's change our twitter icon! That will do the trick! /s
Although my gut reaction is similar to many who have commented, reading the summary:
"(Sec. 8) Prohibits this Act from being construed to permit the federal government to require an entity to provide information to the federal government."
It still appears a voluntary measure for companies to share and divulge information in this bill. It states it over and over and the quote above directly states it from misinterpretation. So, if you trust the company you do business with not to share (iOS 8+ and the non-storing of encryption keys), then there shouldn't be a change. However, if you don't trust them, AT&T/Verizon, then expect them to keep sharing.
I am going to continue to read beyond the summary into the full text of the bill, but it's not as bad as it seems. Bad companies in terms of privacy will continue to be bad (with more impunity), good companies should be allowed to continue to be good.
I'm thinking of emailing my senator Franken and see why he objected. I must be missing something. I'll also continue reading deeper into the bill.
Isn't that the whole Feds vs. Apple fight right now? Apple says it doesn't have the means to break into user's encrypted data. So if Apple was scanning it would be outright lying. I don't care for Tim Cook's management of Apple but I don't think he's a liar. So, no I don't presume Apple is peeking at information stored in iCloud or that might flow through Apple's servers.
If I reverse the last two numbers of both (ssn and birthday) they are the same
As if somebody would shoot them currently if they picked up the phone and alerted each other about hacks. But it's OK now, because Congress have galvanised itself into action.
Election day is next week. If you're not happy about someone who voted yay for this and they are on the ballot, vote for someone else. Then send the incumbent a nice letter telling them what you did and why you did it.
No Congressional seats are up for reelection this year. The fact is, they do **** like this because our voting participation sucks.
I feel it may be more to do with the EXACT words and phrases Tim publicly uses, which to us, we hear it as having one meaning, but it's VERY carefully crafted English to actually mean or allow something else.
So, not a Lie technically, but more a clever and precise use of language to appear to be saying one thing, whilst legally? meaning another.
And/or what you don't say, combined with the actual meaning of certain words.
If what WE THINK is genuine, then Apple's servers are the ideal place for nasty evil people to store child pornography, terrorist plots, you name it, that the place to store it. If it's not touchable, as Tim Suggests.
The point is, do any of us want Apple to be THE safe haven for all of that?
"There is a problem in **** Country and I am needed in the Situation Room? I am sorry, but I have this thing tomorrow evening in Denver, so I am going to skip this and go to Denver today so I am not jet lagged tomorrow night."
I do disagree with Bernie on other issues, but he seems to be a good candidate with integrity.
NPR covered it this morning. You can listen, if you have 3 minutes to spare.
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltech...=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltech...=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
I can't if no decent politician steps up to run. My state attracts the worst of the worst.
So... Frustration about someone refusing to do their job being directed at the person who refuses to do their job "is being directed at the wrong people". If we shouldn't direct that frustration at the person who refuses to do their job, who *should* we direct it towards? Should we direct that frustration at the people who *were* there to do their jobs? That doesn't make sense.
In this case, sadly true. Power is an irresistible potion to those in authority. The house and senate seem hell-bent on ramming this through. Maybe a deluge of millions upon millions of emails to Mr Obama might persuade him to consider his presidential veto powers. Of course Congress can then override that veto with a two-thirds majority.
Somehow I fear we're one step closer to that 'slippery slope' towards a police state where nothing will be sacred.
Politics today is not about representing the people, its about controlling the people. Crime, terrorism, etc. are just the excuses used to achieve control.