Amen brother. Bernie was the only one on the left I could stomach. I am so surprised to find out how un-left hillbillery is on this issue.
[doublepost=1476728582][/doublepost]
I'll take a Johnson versus the ass or the elephant this year.
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.
'Unprecedented' Warrant Request Sought to Compel Individuals to Open Fingerprint-Locked Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[doublepost=1476728582][/doublepost]
Hillary's "Manhattan-like project" was a vague proposal for a law enforcement-tech industry summit to come up with a solution to balance their divergent interests. It was not a proposal to "break encryption" as you describe it. It was harmless blather, not anti-privacy.
I can pretty much predict how this will all play out. Once you go postmodern on the Constitution, it's all over. Enjoy the police-state.
[doublepost=1476729094][/doublepost]
While I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to him (as a disclaimer), he seems kind of like an idiot to me. He's got some basic libertarian principles going, but it's all jumbled up with un-thought-through positions on how to apply it. And, for sure, unregulated capitalism isn't free-market... that's kind of economics 101. Free-market needs regulation, otherwise it becomes a polar-opposite (and equally awful) of socialism.
That said, given the alternatives, I guess I'd rather have an idiot who doesn't know what Aleppo is, than an idiot who might bomb it, just because, or an calculated evil person who helped create the problem in the first place, and would do it again as a matter of principal (i.e.: warmonger).
BTW, he's about the only alternative that has a real chance: cf. http://www.congressionaldish.com/cd133-the-electoral-college/
[doublepost=1476729094][/doublepost]
While I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to him (as a disclaimer), he seems kind of like an idiot to me. He's got some basic libertarian principles going, but it's all jumbled up with un-thought-through positions on how to apply it. And, for sure, unregulated capitalism isn't free-market... that's kind of economics 101. Free-market needs regulation, otherwise it becomes a polar-opposite (and equally awful) of socialism.
That said, given the alternatives, I guess I'd rather have an idiot who doesn't know what Aleppo is, than an idiot who might bomb it, just because, or an calculated evil person who helped create the problem in the first place, and would do it again as a matter of principal (i.e.: warmonger).
BTW, he's about the only alternative that has a real chance: cf. http://www.congressionaldish.com/cd133-the-electoral-college/
Last edited:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-new-hampshire/Hillary Clinton said:
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
I'm not really impressed with any of them this year. I agree the most with Clinton's current stances (today's - including Bernie's changes announced at the DNC), but she's been on both sides of way too many arguments to really make me feel like she'll stick with any of them once elected. I'm not totally sure about my feelings on some of the points like minimum wage though, and while it's a feel-good policy, it doesn't make sense to do it nationally. I flat out don't agree with Trump from any angle including financial platforms and walls, etc. Gary Johnson doesn't really impress me on foreign affairs as I mentioned earlier. Jill Stein really kicks herself for being a medical doctor who is anti-vaxing, and the executive order that she plans to use to forgive student debt isn't even an executive action.
The only reason I'd vote for any of them is because I'm enough of a tree-hugging hippy (not really, only kind of) to want to avoid a politician that doesn't believe in climate change. I would include my stance on personal freedoms and encryption, but none of them break away from the pack other than Gary Johnson, and he contradicts my first reason for voting.
Gary Johnson said:
Last edited:
What, you expected a position on freedom based on something other than personal finances from a guy who uses the symbol for money as his avatar?
Okay you responded very well and intelligently so instead of my previous snarky remark, let me respond a little better here.
In general, if you put all 4 candidates together, you probably still can't get a candidate that would actually be good for this country. There really is not much to like about any of the candidates on the ballot this year. Where I live, it is a guarantee that my delegate will go to Clinton. I live in such a blue area that there is literally (and I do not exaggerate) a 100% chance that Clinton wins the state. So I feel that gives me the freedom to vote anyway I want. I hear so many people that are voting not for a person but for an issue such as global warming, supreme court justice picks, abortion, electronic privacy, etc. Others are picking based on scandals. In the end, there is no candidate that I agree with on all the issues and there is no candidate that is without scandals. Really I would like to pick a candidate that I at least believe truly intends to fight for the things they say (i don't believe any of them). I may actually write in a candidate to protest. For me the real fight is at the local level where I know the candidates and can influence to some degree.
Regardless of who wins at the top, issues like this bad warrant will be decided at lower levels and that is where I am really focused.
It's so crazy bad, that I'm going with:
" ... they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people ..."
- John Calvin, Institutes (1536 AD)
If Johnson were to win in a couple of states, the decision goes to Congress, which would at least make it interesting. Or, not voting would send a message if enough didn't vote (i.e.: lowest voter turnout kind of thing).
But, yea, local and Congress is where we can probably make the most impact, regardless of who is the president. Congress is pretty much getting away with anything, as hardly anyone (including the media) is paying attention. And, aside from a few pet-issues, they are pretty much hand-in-hand on most everything bad for the country (economics, foreign policy, trade agreements, USA sovereignty, privacy-rights, spending, corporate corruption, etc.). (Check that link just up the thread to Congressional Dish podcast to keep up on it all.)
So do companies that use lobbyists to use riders or other means to pervert law for their personal benefit. The US is a democratic republic, not a plutocratic oligarchy, unless that is an erroneous condition?
This is/was a fishing expedition and the judge should be ashamed.
"We don't know what we are looking for, but we'll know when we find it."
This is clearly an unreasonable search.
"We don't know what we are looking for, but we'll know when we find it."
This is clearly an unreasonable search.
You mean... used to be. Unless the people take it back, it's all over, folks. (and, I don't think most of 'the people' even want to anymore)
Bad precident to start IMO. At risk of sounding like some teenage pothead philosopher (which I'm not), the smartphone has nearly become an extension of ones mind- containing a decent amount of a person's daily conversation (text, email, phone records, voicemail), storing daily tasks (calendar), memories (photos videos), geographic locations, acting as a hub of other resources, and now even tracking health metrics.
I imagine there must be a disconnect between Judges and much of the population. Most judges I know are on the older side (my great uncle was on the bench until age 101) and probably not entirely intune with how smartphones have been deeply ingrained in individuals' lives. People want a sense of privacy with their information.
(Imagine the day when someone gets murdered, recorded on a security camera, and the Apple Watch of the suspect records the a rapid pulse around the the same time the victim's watch indicates no pulse. Interesting evidence to put on the table. Sounds good for an SUV episode)
I imagine there must be a disconnect between Judges and much of the population. Most judges I know are on the older side (my great uncle was on the bench until age 101) and probably not entirely intune with how smartphones have been deeply ingrained in individuals' lives. People want a sense of privacy with their information.
(Imagine the day when someone gets murdered, recorded on a security camera, and the Apple Watch of the suspect records the a rapid pulse around the the same time the victim's watch indicates no pulse. Interesting evidence to put on the table. Sounds good for an SUV episode)
It's hardly a fishing trip.
A warrant needs to be specific to what evidence is being sought. If the evidence can be located on a computer it can be seized and the hard drive examine. That's no different for other electronic devices such as phone.
Now, in light of enhanced encryption and device locking the warrant is also authorizing the seizure of documents, key, and print to assist in accessing devices to extract evidence.
Last edited:
Bernie has sold out to the party that screwed him over during the primaries. He never had a chance.
So if you are doing something illegal use an actual password
Better yet, don't keep illegal stuff on your phone.
Better yet, don't keep illegal stuff on your phone.
It's about a lot more than doing something illegal... at least in the way you, I, or the average reader thinks of it.
As we head into a totalitarian, police-state, a lot of things are going to become unlawful (their nicer way of saying illegal). If you cross those boundaries, you might not be jailed, but you'll be 'run out of town' so to speak (lose your job, be harassed, etc.), and if you want to fight it, you'll be up against a tribunal (i.e.: kangaroo court).
And, all this stuff we're allowing to creep forward, in the name of 'keeping us safe' is going to come back to haunt us.
Heck, our leaders don't even know what their jobs are anymore. What do they all say? My job is to keep the citizens safe. NO, it was to protect and uphold the Constitution. But, now that it's an irrelevant document, they can just move on to 'keeping us safe.' Enjoy your bread and water, they'll take care of you.
I agree with your post, my comment was more about criminals choosing to use Touch ID vs using a burner phone.
For sure... and my comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you.
And, that's a good point. Any smart criminal or terrorist (i.e.: most of those that are real threats) are also smart enough to do stuff like burner-phones, or not use compromised 'privacy' software, and stuff like that.
Then, if we take out the crazies and medication induced incidents (often prompted by the FBI, etc.), that pretty much eliminates the need to get into these devices. So, the law enforcement will have to go back to good ol' fashioned investigation.
Yaaaawn outrage from everybody... 'your data should be protected 100% even if you've raped kids and stored videos/pictures on your phone'.
Me... I hope unlocking as part of warrants just becomes the norm. It's the digital equivalent of getting an application to kick your door down when the neighbours have reported smelling funky odours from your basement (where you store dead bodies and run a speed lab).
IMO it's not a privacy concern. It's the cops being allowed to adapt to the times!!! NFI why anybody wouldn't want them to be allowed to do this unless they are a paranoid tin hat who reckons the cops are gonna set them up or whatever. Or frankly (since it's mostly IT people who oppose this)... I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of people opposing it have illegal images on their phones that they don't want the cops to be able to view.
Me... I hope unlocking as part of warrants just becomes the norm. It's the digital equivalent of getting an application to kick your door down when the neighbours have reported smelling funky odours from your basement (where you store dead bodies and run a speed lab).
IMO it's not a privacy concern. It's the cops being allowed to adapt to the times!!! NFI why anybody wouldn't want them to be allowed to do this unless they are a paranoid tin hat who reckons the cops are gonna set them up or whatever. Or frankly (since it's mostly IT people who oppose this)... I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of people opposing it have illegal images on their phones that they don't want the cops to be able to view.
The story is based on a Filing Memorandum. Have you found the warrant? I've struck out, so far.
Regardless, I don't understand why this is being described as unprecedented. Considering the relative newness of the technology, the DoJ, and LE in general, will continually try to find out what constitutional, lawful tools are available to them to perform their jobs.
I wouldn't be so quick to paint all IT professionals as pedophiles and perverts. Perhaps it's because we understand the ramifications of the decision and want to protect privacy of everyone.
In normal warrants, law-enforcement has to show up, knock down the door, and then they can collect evidence that has to do with the warrant that they have in their hand. If they got the key to get into the location, then they only got access to one location. No one else magically gets access to the house or other houses just because the police got in.
In tech, the technology is available for anyone as soon as one bad actor gets ahold of the magic key whether through hacking or simple mis-handling. Once they get into one phone, they have access to all phones of that type, and so would anyone else with the code. Unlike with physical keys, it's not time or cost prohibitive to make 5,000 copies of a digital key if stolen. I'm sure law enforcement is great and the best example of dignified humans in this world, but you can't tell me that for the future of everything that the magic key (or backdoor) won't get out.
http://gizmo.do/MEMmLF7
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/microsoft-secure-boot-firmware-snafu-leaks-golden-key/
Imagine if law enforcement could copy your entire house, search everything in a few seconds, and keep it on record for all time. It's up to the police (who aren't tech experts) to secure your data at this point, and it's way too easy at that point to sit around and read anything they want. In the case of breaking encryption, they could scrutinize every bit of anything they want to. It's not even about being incriminating. I could let someone scour everything and find nothing but a bunch of family/friends/nature photos and un-incriminating information like class notes I took pictures of. I wouldn't like some stranger rifling through all of my greeting cards let alone where I keep notes on everything I think about. I could argue that a criminal gave up that right, but with encryption, once one person gives up the right, we all give up that right.
No, I haven't read it. My comment is based on my familiarity with search warrants and directed at the post implying this 'unprecedented language' was merely a fishing trip ploy.
Good post. My addendum to yours; I look at which candidate could potentially and realistically do the most harm in the next 3-4 years and that is the one I won't vote for.
Here in Cali no matter whom I vote for the end result will be blue.