I agree with all of this, but can we be sure that that family was actually killed by a drone, directed by Obastardo, himself? I'm just asking because the stuff that isn't true, really pulls the teeth out of the stuff that is.
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.
President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with all of this, but can we be sure that that family was actually killed by a drone, directed by Obastardo, himself? I'm just asking because the stuff that isn't true, really pulls the teeth out of the stuff that is.
I doubt Tim Cook takes this as personally as you do. Even if he does, he's probably aware that this fight to provide a secure environment for Apple's customers' data is a battle to be fought on many fronts (in many countries). By the time this single case is resolved, President Obama will have one foot out the door.
The fight for a permanent back door, if it happens, will likely involve a different Congress and a different President. I don't see President Obama, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan posing for a picture at a signing ceremony for The Cellphone Surveillance Act of 2016.
If such a law does someday pass and gets signed by a President Clinton or President Trump, it still will have to work its way through the courts. Apple and other companies will immediately challenge the constitutionality of such a law
Could you explain what doing their job is if everything is secret? If everything is locked away and impossible to access. I find it ironic how when Snowden "cracked the code" and exposed the secrets, this was fine, because we don't need government having secrets, and yet when government wants the same we are on the brink of the breakdown of society.
As long as government learns how to crack encryption in an ethical or moral way then that is fine? As long as they put the effort in, that's fine?
Only a Republican could be simple minded enough to believe this.
CONSTITUTION, MOTHER ****ER!
DO YOU SPEAK IT?
I have a right to encrypt whatever the **** I want, and the government cannot compel me to testify against myself by giving them the encryption key. Fifth Amendment.
Apple has a right to make whatever speech it wants -- or, crucially, to refrain from speaking. In particular, it has a right not to tell the government its signing key, either. First Amendment.
Totalitarian ******* Obama needs to back the **** off. At this point he's even worse than George "goddamn piece of paper" W. Bush!
DO YOU SPEAK IT?
I have a right to encrypt whatever the **** I want, and the government cannot compel me to testify against myself by giving them the encryption key. Fifth Amendment.
Apple has a right to make whatever speech it wants -- or, crucially, to refrain from speaking. In particular, it has a right not to tell the government its signing key, either. First Amendment.
Totalitarian ******* Obama needs to back the **** off. At this point he's even worse than George "goddamn piece of paper" W. Bush!
If agreeing with your chosen candidate on every single issue, including the issues that haven't come up yet, is your requirement, I can only assume that you never vote.
I know a country is safer when its president doesn't know exactly what's going on, especially when it's none of his or her business.
Not every single issue, but hopefully core crucial ones... especially when these jokers have taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution!
Currently, there's no major candidate running who seems to get this.
This doesn't bode well for Apple and the other smart phone manufacturers. This issue may be a flaw in the whole concept of having one's entire life and security contained in hand held device. Apple has bet the farm on the smart phone as an integral if not very major part of the future consumer life style. I don't know what it will all mean but it probably isn't good.
United States President Barack Obama today spoke with Texas Tribune editor Evan Smith at South by Southwest (SXSW), where he indirectly addressed Apple's dispute with the FBI. While Obama said he could not comment specifically on the ongoing encryption battle between the two, he spoke on larger issues of privacy and security.
Obama cautioned against taking an "absolutist" view on encryption and said American citizens already make concessions to balance privacy with security in other aspects of their lives. He used warrants to search homes and possessions, something the public agrees is necessary, as a parallel to accessing data on a smartphone.
He also pointed towards airport security as an example of a compromise made between security and privacy. "It's not fun going through security," he said, "but we recognize it as important." He went on to say that the notion that data can be "walled off" from those "other tradeoffs we make" is incorrect.Obama said that while he wants to make sure the government cannot "willy-nilly" get into everyone's iPhones without oversight and probable cause, there are "constraints we impose" to make sure we live in a safe and civilized society. He advocated for finding a balance between encryption and privacy and the government's need to investigate crimes.Obama went on to call on software engineers and technology companies to help the government solve the problem, and he said a thorough, well-formed encryption solution should be established before it's desperately needed. He cautioned against the tech community disengaging or taking a position that "is not sustainable for the general public as a whole over time," as it could lead to a stalemate that will ultimately lead to "sloppy" legislation should the political climate change after something "really bad happens." Apple, too, has urged for the issue to be solved in Congress instead of the courts.
The president's comments come as Apple is facing off against the U.S. government in a fierce public battle over the order that would require Apple to help the FBI break into the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook by creating new software to circumvent passcode restrictions on the device. Apple believes complying with the demand would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to the overall weakening of encryption on smartphones and other electronic devices.
The Department of Justice has dismissed Apple's concerns, calling its fears overblown and insisting the request will not result in a universal "master key." Just yesterday, a government filing accused Apple of "deliberately" raising technological barriers preventing law enforcement from accessing data on Apple devices, something Apple lawyer Bruce Sewell went on to call an "unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple."
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue
The president and I disagree on many things. I do however like the moderate verbiage he has used overall here. I have said it before: I want to help law enforcement catch the bad guys. No one wants a child pornographer, as an example, to have more tools with which to commit crimes. But this *must* be balanced by the need to protect our privacy because history has shown us time and again that such power will be abused by the very institutions and people within in them that are meant to protect us. I certainly hope a middle road can be found.
I've lived through the end of the world as we know it so many times that I have lost count.
It's almost all primarily from the right wing part of American politics. His approval ratings certainly don't agree with the "worst president ever" nonsense that they keep spewing. No matter how many times they keep repeating it, it hasn't come true unfortunately for them. I think it's more of them trying to make him out to be as bad as the embarrassment that they had in the chair from 2000-2008.
On this specific issue he's demonstrated that like the majority of the other politicians, he has no clue of how technology works.
It is inconsistent for a reason, so that it cannot be learned readily....see even your friend "learned" or thought he had learned it was safe to throw a leatherman into his bag after going through once, even though there are signs saying otherwise. I have a friend who works in airport security and they change the settings (I guess sensitivity) numerous times a day.
Once I just passed through security (without issue) and realised I had left my phone on the other side, so had to go back. 3 minutes later, with an identical process, I was stopped because my watch triggered the system and yet 3 minutes before it was fine.
Who invited Obama to speak at SXSW?
That's about as dumb as inviting Ted Cruz to a gay wedding.
That's about as dumb as inviting Ted Cruz to a gay wedding.
Judging from this thread there is some hope.
The absolute moron in the white house is exposing himself.
The absolute moron in the white house is exposing himself.
You'll be in good company, the terrorists, paedophiles and the like will be doing the same thing
Right wing, left wing, you have fallen for the trap and bought into the lie that there is a two party system. Both leading political parties are of the same "wing" for the core issues of:
- Dumping on the Constitution.
- Right to privacy.
- Spending money they don't have.
- Expanding the reach of government.
- Foreign policy.
- Wars (war on terror, war on drugs, any war they can think of).
- Plenty more.
How is a guy who continues the policies of his predecessor (and in some cases expands them) any less of an embarrassment? Go compare the track record of the the man who is President now to that of his predecessor. The only difference between Obama and Bush II is in public perception; being a better orator goes a long way to assuage concerns, and the media certainly gives a pass to the current guy more often than not.
If you still feel a need to continue apologizing for the guy, you are still indoctrinated. It's not just "this specific issue" where he's demonstrated that he's like the majority of the other politicians. He's been just like every other one of them for 8 years now. Stop buying into the propaganda.
Yes, any manufacturer of safes can open them. And they have to if there's a warrant.
[doublepost=1457759235][/doublepost]It is the truth that you can have several keys that unlock the same crypto. A company lock could be made on manufacture. Then you make another key. Then a lawful warrant could easily open the phone. The problem comes when you say, well, how do you keep that master key absolutely secret? I don't think you can. If some master cryptographer could come up with a system, that would be acceptable to me. I don't think there is such a key, though.
So isn't the underlying problem really the fact the FBI does not have enough technical know-how to overcome Apples encryption technology? So the solution is the FBI has to gets its **** together, back in the early days of computers the FBI remained technologically superior than standard encryption tactics and this situation was avoided. Now that modern encryption has become extremely good, the FBI has hit a dead end and they do not like it. So they are trying to use their power to force someone else who DOES have the superior technical know-how.
Essentially the FBI is unable to come up with fancy enough "drills" to cut into the digital safe (iPhone), so they are forcing their interests onto a third party. If the FBI was cracking the iPhone themselves like they would any other personal property there would be no discussion. But they can't, in a way the situation makes them look weak.
Security and Privacy is an important part of everything, but not really the underlying problem. The underlying debate is should the government have the authority to force any third party to do its' bidding? The security/privacy thing is just a consequence of this particular situation.
Think about it, if the government can force apple to do stuff, why not China? Once the government has successfully forced a third party to do something, where does their ability to force anything upon anyone stop?
If only this was in any conceivable way relevant to my comment, it wouldn't so easy to ignore!
I'm pretty sure he could have stricken this whole thing down and the Obama haters would still flock to this post.
Say what you will about big brother folks. You're still free to hate your president without being beheaded.
Incoming "just wait. We won't be free for long" retorts.
Say what you will about big brother folks. You're still free to hate your president without being beheaded.
Incoming "just wait. We won't be free for long" retorts.
President Obama, Yes we can!
[doublepost=1457760500][/doublepost]
I'm no Obama fan though I did vote for him over Hillary in 2008.
That said, power got to this guy's head. He campaigned complaining about Bush's misuse of executive power and now makes Bush look like a piker.
[doublepost=1457760500][/doublepost]
I'm no Obama fan though I did vote for him over Hillary in 2008.
That said, power got to this guy's head. He campaigned complaining about Bush's misuse of executive power and now makes Bush look like a piker.