President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

[ThunderSkunk]

Q: Should we shoot some holes in the hoover dam, or not?
A: You cannot take an absolutist view on holes in the dam.

You're either going to have holes in the dam, or you're not.

 

[nylon]

Q: Should we shoot some holes in the hoover dam, or not?
A: You cannot take an absolutist view on holes in the dam.

You're either going to have holes in the dam, or you're not.

Bad analogy. A dam lets water through at a controlled rate.

 

[lordofthereef]

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.

You can say what you will. Im just making observations of the thread. People are discussing things that have nothing to do with this story. People can't help themselves when the president is mentioned.

 

[SteveW928]

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.

There is no middle or balance. It's either secure or it's not. The only way to 'solve' that supposed dilemma would be to go the insecure route, which means trusting someone with the 'spare key' not to accidentally or purposely break that trust.

And given history and the track record of the current parties crying for such a compromise to made, anyone who has studied history, knows anything about human nature, or has been paying just a slight bit of attention to the current government, would know that trust would be greatly misplaced.

I've lived through the end of the world as we know it so many times that I have lost count.

So, you're saying the concern is unjustified? When you have liberal justices 'interpreting' the Constitution, you may as well not have a constitution. And, I'm not talking party politics here, I'm talking historical-critical, authorial-intent vs postmodern, reader-responsive modes of interpretation kind of thing. tl;dr - the latter isn't pretty!

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...

I very much agree with the point you're making. But, keep in mind, there are also important distinctions between the parties as well. But for sure, on things like economic policy, and *especially* keeping their game going (ie: being on the take, while screwing you and I), they are peas in a pod.

 

[sir1963nz]

I'm Australian mate.

Well as a Kiwi, you have my deepest sympathies. But they do say admitting you have a problem is the first step. There is hope for you yet

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Bad analogy. A dam lets water through at a controlled rate.

And a phone lets data through in a controlled manner, but the point wasn't to make a direct analog for a phone, it was to illustrate that choosing to make something that is tightly controlled, open and uncontrolled, is by its very nature an "absolutist" choice. There's your remedial reading comp lesson for the evening. Now on to this word "absolutist"...

 

[SteveW928]

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.

Well, there certainly is a lot about Obama to hate, but I should be able to AT LEAST expect him to take his core duty, which he swore to, seriously. (If he'd have done that, while I don't like many things about him, I'd at least be proud of him for that. And, I'd probably say it.)

And, I'm glad you're aware enough to have anticipated the response, so I guess I don't have to point it out.

 

[TMRJIJ]

It's funny how most of the comments I've read have nothing to do with the article.
So many people are also violating Forum Rules of Trolling and Insulting other members.

 

[ThomasJL]

Yeah Obama, and there'll be cameras in those meeting you'll have with 'BIG OIL' and they'll be streamed live like you promised. And you'll end all those wars and bring all those troops home. And there'll be transparency, you know the kind that Snowden gave you and you'll celebrate it. One big disappointment your whole presidency has been. Just because you're not Bush doesn't mean you were a good president. You drone-killing Wall St. puppet. Your good looks, friendly smile and overconfidence don't hide that you're a man without integrity or character.

Well said. Obama is a morally bankrupt liar with a track record for not valuing human life, so there is no reason to trust him on the issue of encryption.

 

[thadoggfather]

I can't imagine waiting in line for hours as a techie to be told, "work for us and help us with the movement to scold encryption"

It is interesting there is a lot of overlap between Apple's user base and liberals, this is sort of a fork in the road huh?

Or not, most people think it's awesome he made it to SXSW, read that headline, and moved on with their lives cheerfully

face palm

what's interesting is the san bernardino thing was originally a premature call out to tighten up gun rules thinking its another crazy domestic shooter case, then we learned it was terrorist involved, and moved on to attacking encryption. and the apple password was changed when the phone was in the gov's possession, and then they still want a backdoor. suspect

an attack on american soil resulting in stripping of non-threatening civilians' rights

it's a shame this bores a lot of people, caring. or that they assume you must be a bush loving staunch conservative by raising eyebrows and concern

 

[CmdrLaForge]

This whole topic is developing in a way that I have to change my view. At first it was about unlocking one terrorist phone at Apples main office with no new software getting out. Apple denied that because they thought they cannot keep it inside. I initially doubted that. But if even the president is after them it is clear. Once the software is there they force Apple to hand it over.

So go Tim go.

 

[pika2000]

So hipsters, who are you going to side with now? Your lovely president, or your lovely gadget maker? haha. I bet people's heads are spinning now.

 

[SteveW928]

This whole topic is developing in a way that I have to change my view. At first it was about unlocking one terrorist phone at Apples main office with no new software getting out. Apple denied that because they thought they cannot keep it inside. I initially doubted that. But if even the president is after them it is clear. Once the software is there they force Apple to hand it over.

So go Tim go.

I think you're too trusting... it was never really about THAT phone. THAT phone was just a good emotionally charged case to try and use to set precedence.

 

[thadoggfather]

If DOJ wins, Obama will truly have his iPhone 'Obamaphone Edition' vision come true,

iOS 10 marketing features:
unencrypted iMessages
24x7 iSight peepers
iBackd00r

 

[ThunderSkunk]

I should be able to AT LEAST expect him to take his core duty, which he swore to, seriously. (If he'd have done that...

Regardless of what he swore with the best of intentions, the president is not a king. There are opportunistic and systematic limitations on the presidents power, and both are inn full effect. Obama hasn't been in a position of power to do anything other than by executive order in years. Every day he gets to choose between doing nothing at all or "abusing his power" by issuing executive orders. Criticize his decisions all day long, but criticizing his ability to do his job is extremely misguided at this point. He cant do anything.

 

[SteveW928]

Regardless of what he swore with the best of intentions, the president is not a king. There are opportunistic and systematic limitations on the presidents power, and both are inn full effect. Obama hasn't been in a position of power to do anything other than by executive order in years. Every day he gets to choose between doing nothing at all or "abusing his power" by issuing executive orders. Criticize his decisions all day long, but criticizing his ability to do his job is extremely misguided at this point. He cant do anything.

I don't expect a king, or even that he'll necessarily get anything at all done... but I expect what he DOES do to be in alignment with what he swore.... to protect and defend the Constitution.

FYI:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

His job IS NOT to convince us to give up some of our rights so he can better protect us. Bzzzz!!! Wrong answer!

And, I'd actually say he's accomplished quite a bit.... it's just that I think most of it has been in a harmful direction. But that discussion would be kinda O.T. for the point at hand.

 

[Hirakata]

The theatre act may be a joke, but before you think the joke is useless, you should look at the number of loaded guns that airport security manages to confiscate. All it takes is one of those with someone who didn't take their meds, or is otherwise suicidal.

2653 guns were confiscated by the TSA in 2015, yet in undercover tests, 95% of explosives and weapons made it through TSA checkpoints. If we have so much to worry about, why aren't planes falling from the sky.

 

[doelcm82]

So, you're saying the concern is unjustified? When you have liberal justices 'interpreting' the Constitution, you may as well not have a constitution. And, I'm not talking party politics here, I'm talking historical-critical, authorial-intent vs postmodern, reader-responsive modes of interpretation kind of thing. tl;dr - the latter isn't pretty!

Nope. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that assuming the FBI/DOJ is going to win this in court is not something I'm willing to do. Nor do I see it as inevitable that Congress will pass legislation that seeks to force Apple to build in a back door. If such a law does pass, it's not a sure thing that it will survive a Constitutional challenge.

I'm also saying that whatever slippery slope we're on, it's the same slope we were on in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, etc. And probably long before that. 1984 was not about 1984. It was about 1948, and the cliff we were going over then.

 

[Jess13]

If only this was in any conceivable way relevant to my comment, it wouldn't so easy to ignore!

You mentioned drones being used in the U.S., in the comment section to a story on Obama.

 

[patseguin]

I don't see what the big deal is. Of course privacy is important, but we are talking about a frigging phone. If there is crucial information to prevent terrorism or prosecute a suspect, then just crack the damned thing. What privacy are we talking about anyways? Someone might be able to find out what apps I have? I'd gladly give up a little privacy if it means being better able to fight terrorism.

 

[Jess13]

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 don’t remember off-hand where and when that drone attack happened, but yes they were droned during Obama’s administration. All drone targets are signed off on by Obama, with his kill list / kill chain team. Then the hunters try to assassinate who Obama has ordered them to target.

In many instances, they’re hunting phones: literally using SIGINT to target. That is one reason why, according to study by Stanford & NYU titled ‘Living Under Drones,’ the ratio is: 49 civilians murdered for every 1 terrorist. The recent Dronebama exposé at The Intercept details this:

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

 

[Denmac1]

Didn't read the entire thread , but I think it was mentioned before that Apple should just say 'Give us the phone"

"Oppss, sorry, didn't work. Thanks for playing'

 

[a.gomez]

QUOTE="sevoneone, post: 22660830, member: 434727"]Yeah, not really the same thing. 1. You agreed to that when you signed to live at the co-op, and access to the keys is still limited to a group that has the same to loose as you do. No one has agreed to hand access to their privacy to the Federal Government. 2. If there was a situation that warranted it, the Fire Department would have taken the door down by force.

If we're trying to keep this analogous to the physical world, then the government should just develop a way to brute force their way through the encryption. It would take money, time, knowledge and resources, barriers that would help ensure whatever the tool is used responsibly. If you want to make an analogy to a physical lock/key, there are these things called lock picks, they can be used to open just about anything that needs a key. Law enforcement uses them to great effect and sure, anyone can get their hands on a set, but it takes skill, knowledge and time to get through a good lock, more than your average person of nefarious intent can afford. What the government wants Apple to create would let anyone unlock your iPhone with a click if they got their hands on it.[/QUOTE]

Ok, and that is actually one option the FBI asked for. To take down the limit of guess before the phone erases the content - and they will brute force into it - but Apple wont even do that. By the same logic the government would not use that much time and energy to get into aunt Betty's phone for no good reason.

Also, they gunned down US citizens in our own soil - including a father of 6 and a mother of 3 - I think this is a situation that warrants taking down the door by force.

 

[mozumder]

**** Obama.

Treasonous scumbag.

Obama is technologically inept. I'd expect nothing less from a community organizer who still uses a Blackberry and merrily conducts extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens and routinely flies Pentagon drones all over the United States.

Obama is a totalitarian at heart. Worst president...ever.

Completely wrong. Thanks.

 

[Roadstar]

And, who even are the good guys? While there might be some, I'm certainly not going to toss the government into that category!

Indeed. That's exactly why there should be no backdoors as the allegedly good guys could actually be just a different variant of bad guys.