This is also why the protest itself was stupid, all it did was fuel the flames for Trump supporters and help his popularity. I'm not sure what they wanted to accomplish by crashing his event.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
I'd guess that it's the same thing that other people want. To see and be heard by a presidential candidate. I don't think it's a good idea, but hell, I cant't stop it, either.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/news...llscape-that-was-donald-trumps-st-louis-rally
The hideous underbelly of Trump's supporters. A biased article, certainly, of course. But still, some appalling people.
The hideous underbelly of Trump's supporters. A biased article, certainly, of course. But still, some appalling people.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
So, looks like there is interest in more than one phone .. shocking. Could not disagree with him more here ... as evidenced by "we need to get into this ONE phone" to "we need to hack everyone's phone" .. and the thought that a "key" will not get out into the hacking community is naive as hell, beyond privacy rights, this will turn into a cyber theft paradise.
http://bgr.com/2016/03/12/apple-vs-fbi-president-obama-iphone-encryption/
f there’s one word that accurately encapsulates Obama’s viewpoint, it would have to be balance. Though he didn’t mention Apple or the FBI by name, Obama stressed that the debate shouldn’t be about 100% encryption or 100% national security, but rather about finding a delicate balance between the two competing interests. As an illustrative example, Obama referenced Airport security checks, a process which became much more rigorous following 9/11.
Obama’s remarks read in part:
Obama further added:
http://bgr.com/2016/03/12/apple-vs-fbi-president-obama-iphone-encryption/
f there’s one word that accurately encapsulates Obama’s viewpoint, it would have to be balance. Though he didn’t mention Apple or the FBI by name, Obama stressed that the debate shouldn’t be about 100% encryption or 100% national security, but rather about finding a delicate balance between the two competing interests. As an illustrative example, Obama referenced Airport security checks, a process which became much more rigorous following 9/11.
Obama’s remarks read in part:
Technology is evolving so rapidly that new questions are being asked, and I am of the view that there are very real reasons why we want to make sure the government cannot just willy-nilly get into everybody’s iPhones or smartphones…
The question we have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong there’s no key, there’s no door, at all. Then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot? What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement if, in fact, you can’t crack that at all. If the government can’t get in, everyone is walking around with a swiss bank account in their pocket.
There has to be some concession to the need to get that information somehow. Folks who are on the encryption side will argue that any key whatsoever, even if it starts off directed at one device, could end up being used on every device. That’s just the nature of these systems. That is a technical question. I am not a software engineer. It is technically true, but it can be overstated.
The question we have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong there’s no key, there’s no door, at all. Then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot? What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement if, in fact, you can’t crack that at all. If the government can’t get in, everyone is walking around with a swiss bank account in their pocket.
There has to be some concession to the need to get that information somehow. Folks who are on the encryption side will argue that any key whatsoever, even if it starts off directed at one device, could end up being used on every device. That’s just the nature of these systems. That is a technical question. I am not a software engineer. It is technically true, but it can be overstated.
Obama further added:
My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this. So if your argument is ‘strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should in fact create black boxes,’ that I think does not strike the kind of balance we have lived with for 200, 300 years. And it’s fetishizing our phones above every other value, and that can’t be the right answer.
Apple was always very clear that this was never about one particular phone.
They are concerned about the privacy implications of losing this court battle over future phones. And that is exactly what Apple warned about.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Apple is totally right .. and add to that, Apple creating a key will do nothing to stop the things Obama said it would. Terrorists, child pornographers, etc will be (and I guess most already are) moving to rooted Android phones that does not have whatever backdoor the official versions might possibly end up having.
So you end up with regular citizens being vulnerable to hacks .. which is scary when you think about what information people have in their phones and stuff like iPay, plus the government aspect of this ... and no real benefit in legit (with individual warrants) crime fighting.
Fucking idiot.
So you end up with regular citizens being vulnerable to hacks .. which is scary when you think about what information people have in their phones and stuff like iPay, plus the government aspect of this ... and no real benefit in legit (with individual warrants) crime fighting.
Fucking idiot.
Something like that, it would be only months before some FBI guy uses it to figure out if his girlfriend is cheating on him. And then another guy lets his buddy figure it out. And then it's on the open market. That's how human nature works.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Exactly, once it exists, it is only a matter of time before it is out. I could also see local law enforcement wanting it, etc, etc, etc.
I would also think if the cops can get a warrant for the actual phone, they could get a court order for the password to the device .. not sure, but it would make sense. Obviously the case here is a bit different because the people are dead, but for most cases, they are alive.
Correct.
I think we're closest on privacy and social issues, for sure.Hey, we agree on something in this thread
No, I'm sorry, you're wrong.
The Constitution gives the government rules to follow, and it permits as much government interaction as it prohibits - it actually permits a hell of a lot more than it prohibits.
The Bill of Rights - a part of the Constitution - establishes some rights of citizens that the government must respect. But most rights that American citizens hold are based not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but in common law.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Not really, the Constitution (amendments included) generally do 1 of 4 things. Structural stuff (defining offices) , limit government , give government specific powers, and relations with foreign governments/military
As far as limiting versus granting powers, it is mostly limiting. Courts and laws that Congress has passed has certainly expanded their powers.
But in domestic policy, the Constitution (which the amendments are technically part of), it is mostly limiting
The powers granted to the Legislative and Executive branches is quite extensive. The Constitution doesn't limit only specific rights - that's what the 9th Amendment is for.