I sort of agree with trumpy. Since the big tech companies are not transferring ownership of the SW they have an obligation to comply with the government and cannot plead the 5th. I also don't want the government to have back doors into anything.
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.
Donald Trump Criticizes Apple for Opposing iPhone 'Backdoor' Order: 'Who Do They Think They Are?'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Forget the parking fees. Where the hell is the money he claims to have raised for veterans groups?
1) you need to learn what the 5th amendment actually is. It is to protect people self-incriminating themselves in a crime
2) your final point contradicts what you just said
Do you mean the first event where the money went to the bogus Vet group with one member or the recent event where basically 10 rich friends donated all the money to make Trump (and themselves) look good like one of those games on The Apprentice where they raise money for charity? I believe that money was actually divvied up amongst a few vet groups (after it got funneled through Trump's 501(c)) but several major Vet groups said they had no interest in taking his dirty money.
No, I mean the event and website from 2 weeks ago, Website said Trump raised $600,000 and Trump added a zero the next day. To date, I have seen no reports of any of the money going to veterans groups. It's sitting in the DJT Foundation.
Also, remember that veteran's help line he set up? It now doesn't answer calls and a recording directs those seeking help to email.
To go all the way political:
(1) Common core has nothing to do with some imagined ideology that USA is the root of all evils and strife. A quick Google search shows that you appear to be taking "news" sites like Brietbart and Wold Net Daily seriously. There are problems with the Common Core effort (primarily in implementation rather than the standards themselves), but some imagined anti-American slant is not one of them.
(2) US politicians are blaming the US? For what? This reeks of a persecution complex. I do hear Trump telling us we suck, but that's what makes him unique.
(3) Unsanctioned immigration has been negative (that is, more people leaving the US than coming in) for the past five years. If you feel we are at a "bursting point" while more people are leaving than are coming in, then I think there is something else at fault for that impression you have. That said, we do have a much larger unsanctioned immigrant population now than we did twenty years ago, but we also have a much larger citizen population as well as significantly higher levels of authorized immigration. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ for the charts (halfway down is the Mexico-specific one for wall fetishists)
In other words, you have bought into the blowhard "going to hell in a handbasket" crowd, and you see Trump as "saving" us from all that. You should do some research on historical demagogues and how they have employed exactly this tactic time and time again to wrest control for their own purposes. As a bit of a spoiler: the stories never end well for the frenzied populations who buy into the demagoguery.
Another idiot who says things because he thinks it looks good for his stance against immigrants and terrorists. Moron.
Not really, if Apple actually sells the SW then the defendant can choose not to unlock/unencrypt because he/she doesn't want to self incriminate. Apple is not complicit in the crime so there is no 5th for them
Macrumors...
"due to the political nature..."
Bookmark to read later when need a laugh.
"due to the political nature..."
Bookmark to read later when need a laugh.
Same here. Apple is right. We need to put limits on the government for sake of things going wrong.
I don't agree that all iOS devices should have a backdoor into them, but what would be wrong with Apple having an in-house version of iOS that they can load onto a device so it can be decrypted. It wouldn't be a public iOS release, so hackers still wouldn't be able to get into your phone. Not sure if this is possible/realistic, just an idea.
You make no sense. Apple is obligated to live up to the promises they made to their customers. They would stand to lose a ton of business if they break that trust.
Oh, the irony. If he was in Apple's position and the government was demanding that one of his business ventures jump through a bunch of hoops and violate one of the stated principles of the business in order to comply with a court order, I am pretty sure Trump would tell the judicial system and the feds to go perform a physical impossibility on themselves -- behind closed doors, at least.
You've taken what I said out of context. That's ok. This is a hot issue. I didn't mean to imply "because there is a backdoor here there should be one there". What I meant to imply is "because courts have required companies be able to access information in the past, it's entirely possible, and I think probable, the same is going to end up applying to Apple". I don't see why this indifferent, from a legal standpoint, than a search warrant, a subpoena of legal and financial documents and/or emails, etc.
I'm willing to say what I don't know, and that's why I don't knownhowninfeel about this situation. I don't personally feel this is strictly privacy issue. I also feel that there is interpretation, as true with almost anything, regarding a "back door". The question is one of warrants and subpoenas, and frankly, Apple's stance doesn't matter if a court rules the other way. That's why I'm interested in seeing how a court rules. At the end of the day my opinion on this overall is rather irrelevant.
My gut tells me, if the patriot act has not only passed but has not been stricken down since inception, that the court is simply going to rule "open this up, we don't care how, that's not our problem, it's yours". Do I want that? Again, unsure how I feel. I am certain we will hear much more on the matter.
Last edited:
That's the point! They didn't commit a crime and it's their SW they really don't have a way out. Apple is arguing philosophy and the FBI is arguing legality. Since Apple is not transferring ownership of the SW I think they are going to have to/should comply and if they want to avoid this in the future they need to transfer ownership.
Unless I misread, the poster is simply stating that Applenis not protected under the 5th amendment in this case, which doesn't have anything to do with Apple's obligations to their customers. I don't disagree with your statement, I'm just not following why it was in response to how the 5th doesn't cover Apple here.
This is what I think a lot of folks are either missing or dismissing here. And this insensately why is be surprised if Apple won this fight. But I've been surprised plenty before. My law degree came from google after all hahaha.
Donald Duck show us your receipt for your hair so we can know if it was made in America or Mexico.
Many here in the USA wonder about the supporters and policies of Angela Merkel. All it proves is that people living in other countries probably shouldn't comment on foreign politics and politicians -- more often than not they end up looking foolish.
I'm faaaaarrrrr from s trump fan, but he has openly admitted some of his products (i.e. Clothing) was made in China and that his corporation has more than likely employed many illegal immigrants at one point or another.Donald Duck show us your receipt for your hair so we can know if it was made in America or Mexico.
I buy stuff made in China, Cambodia, Mexico, etc all the time. That doesn't mean I can't see that we may benefit from productions coming back home for a lotnofnthese things. Interestingly, sanders is also pushing for this but in different ways (by taxing much more heavily overseas production to dis incentivize outsourcing).
Because the 5th is about oneself.
Apple is not incriminated, therefore it has nothing to do with the 5th.
... and for all that effort, just barely beat out an S&P500 index fund for how much money he made from his father's fortune over the course of his adult life.
Trumps supposed business acumen is (1) almost entirely artifice primarily buoyed by his heavily fabricated autobiography and media management efforts, and (2) entirely not applicable to how the Executive branch of the US Government works.
As for listening to others? You are getting hoodwinked by his Apprentice persona. Granted, his campaign guy-with-short-fuse-flying-off-the-handle act is also just a persona he has put on as that suits him now, but I see no evidence that Trump actually would govern like the person you are imagining rather than the person he is heavily selling to the American people.
Wollman Rink is a great story - more so a story of a corrupt and inept municipal department in New York which squandered over $12M on corrupt contractors than the vision of someone who said, "Hey. I bet they know how to make an ice rink up in Canada!", but a great story nonetheless. That was in the mid-1980s though. Trump's more recent efforts reek of squandered resources and managerial incompetence. Look up the Trump Ocean Club for a laugh of a story. If you want 1980's and 1990's nostalgia, delve into the story of Trump Airlines and his gross mismanagement (and refusal to bring in experienced leadership) there.
Which Trump would we get in office? I think given all the options, some amalgam of what he is selling the more knee-jerk contingent of the Republican party and what he has exhibited in his more recent business dealings is probably as good an expectation as any. But, who knows? Maybe we'll get an ice rink instead of a failed airline and bankrupt casino.