goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on February 17, 2016, 07:16:42 AM
-
The Jobs lite guy at Apple says he is going resist a court order that The company hp unlock the pbone used.by the San Bernardino terrorists who killed 14 people. I am not going to buy rotten Apples.
-
So dumbasses it.is.more important to give terrorists tools.to kill us than make.Apple help national security. Just.pitiful. why is.privacy on a.public owned system so darn good.
-
RenoLuke!
Also are your arthritis plagued fingers why you have so many unnecessary periods?
-
Privacy is far more important
-
Privacy is far more important
I generally agree with this, but surely you can put an exception in your company policy to turn over such information belonging to confirmed terrorists after being ordered by a court to do so.
The decision could actually hurt privacy in the long run by establishing a precedent that courts DO have authority to issue those kinds of orders.
-
No, I will not put in exceptions. If our government has proven anything, it's that every tiny exception granting excess power eventually will turn into a standard.
-
I haven't read the story, but it sounds like it would be an exception for Apple, not the government. Again, by not complying with the court order they run the risk of a decision that courts can do this whenever. The sympathetic nature of this particular case makes that risk higher than normal.
-
Radio just said the phone is owned by the city, that changes things imo. The city should be able to unlock it's own phone
-
Radio just said the phone is owned by the city, that changes things imo. The city should be able to unlock it's own phone
Yep, but, if I read the article on CNN correctly, Apple is saying once this is available, the govt can use it on anyone's phone.
The city should be able to unlock it's own phone, but it shouldn't be allowed to put an undue burden on Apple to design a software update specifically to do that. Also, the city should have some sort of policy in place for phone access(software, etc) that doesn't allow the employee to keep his phone private from his employer. Not sure if this exists, or if it is an area that needs to catch up.
Anyway, I am fully on the side of Apple not giving our govt anything further that they can use to invade our privacy. Lots of ppl are distracted by guns and gays yet don't give a crap about our right to privacy being mostly taken away.
-
Lol, like apple can't already do this
-
Lol, like apple can't already do this
:dunno:
I don't have an iPhone, but the article I read said that if they enter the wrong pass code too many times, the phone auto deletes a bunch of stuff. They are asking Apple to provide an auto update that the phone will install without having to have someone put in the passcode. Then the govt will hook it up to a computer that will try every possible code option until it lets them in.
I doubt Apple has that.
-
I'd bet the farm they are capable of unlocking the phone without an update, probably the reason they won't do it is they don't want the public to find out
-
Ok, telling Apple it has to design a program to hack its own phones seems like an important factor here.
-
Rush: do you think (jobs lite) would comply if the phone would find a serial killer of gay men instead of battling terrorists?
-
go apple, go.
-
I'd bet the farm they are capable of unlocking the phone without an update, probably the reason they won't do it is they don't want the public to find out
What would the benefit of this be?
-
I'd bet the farm they are capable of unlocking the phone without an update, probably the reason they won't do it is they don't want the public to find out
What would the benefit of this be?
So they can spy on you and then tell the NSA to go eff themselves.
-
If it's a city phone I wonder if it's linked with an apple ID account. Couldn't you just unlock that account from a computer terminal and access iMessaging on the back side?
-
Q: How do computer work?
A(You guys): They just do!
It's amazing to me how non-technical people think changing something like this is easy
-
#tbtbrag
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
Maybe the federal government should be better with national security so they don't have to rely on private businesses to do their job.
-
:thumbs:
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2
-
I'd bet the farm they are capable of unlocking the phone without an update, probably the reason they won't do it is they don't want the public to find out
You know a lot about politics yet nothing about technology.
-
I know more than you
-
I know more than you
Your previous comments in this thread prove otherwise.
-
More like brokenidiot, but that doesn't make sense because you appear to be fully whole of idiocy
-
I love how the FBI was like "hey buds it's just one phone, do this one and we won't have to do anymore" and the NYPD was like "yeah do that for them, we also have these 125 other phones that we need to unlock too."
-
yes, go apple, go. The FBI can get mumped.
-
Has the FBI tried their birthday? I'll bet it's their birthday.
-
They were married. It's def the anniversary
-
I know more than you
Your previous comments in this thread prove otherwise.
He took a CS class at KSU like 5 years ago so I think he knows what he's talking about
-
ty tbt
-
God, shut up, computer nerds
-
:comeatme:
-
How was the shitty concert you just got back from?
-
Apple's stance is pure horse crap.
-
Love it or leave it.
-
cant they have the cell carrier turn over the cell records?
-
Maybe looking for iMessage and stuff like that.
-
Prob location info as well to tie them to other locals that could have helped facilitate.
-
On CBS this their cop guy was on and sais the FBI offered to give the phone to Apple, let them take it to their lab, right a code to get in, the FBIers would work in the lab to get the information, and when through let the terrorist sympathizers have the phone and software plug to destroy. It galls me this self righteous Cool guy thinks he is above the law. He is a digital ISIS enabler.
-
Its pretty good advertising. "So secure, even the FBI can't crack it."
-
Lol @ at this charade that the gov't can't crack the phone.
-
On CBS this their cop guy was on and sais the FBI offered to give the phone to Apple, let them take it to their lab, right a code to get in, the FBIers would work in the lab to get the information, and when through let the terrorist sympathizers have the phone and software plug to destroy. It galls me this self righteous Cool guy thinks he is above the law. He is a digital ISIS enabler.
It's a bad law and you should like it when powerful private entities defy bad tyrannical laws
-
Lol @ at this charade that the gov't can't crack the phone.
That's a great point. Is this a lockscreen with 10,000 possible pins? They could have tried them all by now.
-
Maybe they unsuccessfully tried the 10,000.
Enter a six-digit passcode. Or tap Passcode Options to switch to a four-digit numeric code, a custom numeric code, or a custom alphanumeric code.
Erase Data: Choose whether to erase your device automatically after ten failed passcode attempts.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204060
-
So no back door at all? Pretty ballsy of Apple if so. I just have a hard time believing a gajillion dollar intelligence enterprise can't crack an IPhone.
-
This is all for show
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
To accomplish what?
-
The idea that the government can't get in or can't buy an apple employee is laughable.
It's the government trying to gain more surveilance.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
Yep.
-
The idea that the government can't get in or can't buy an apple employee is laughable.
It's the government trying to gain more surveilance.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
I truly believe that they can't get in but they're absolutely trying to gain more surveillance. The "this is a one time thing" has already been blown up.
-
yes, go apple, go. The FBI can get mumped.
yes
-
Police, the FBI, or even Apple should set up voluntary programs where you can register your pass code for their use only in certain(actually legally listed) circumstances.
Sam Harris discussed Apple's current get-mumped stance as wrong on his latest podcast and he did a very poor job in doing so. He basically said that we don't have the right to create a space that is perfectly impenetrable to all others regardless. I disagree. He noted how murderers have been caught because they were actually on video on the phone of their victims, and if they police couldn't get to those vids, those murderers would still be walking free. Really stupid, imo.
So, to get around this, voluntarily give the cops your pass code and sign some legal doc giving them permission to use if in cases similar to something Harris would dream up. If you don't want to? Too bad for the cops(and you if you murderer goes free, I guess).
Otherwise, Apple should keep Apple'ing. They are going to sell so many phones(even more than normal) if they maintain their position and don't create a backdoor.
-
If I get murdered, it doesn't really matter to me whether the guy who did it gets caught or not. I'm a lot more concerned about my rights being violated when I'm alive than I am about whatever happens after I'm dead.
-
If I get murdered, it doesn't really matter to me whether the guy who did it gets caught or not. I'm a lot more concerned about my rights being violated when I'm alive than I am about whatever happens after I'm dead.
Same. I also have both my and my wife's thumbprint set to unlock my phone. Pretty low chance of that scenario in the first place.
-
yay!
if the government wants access to that kind of information they can get a subpoena. otherwise, they can suck eggs.
-
So these mother fuckers got in after all. what a bunch of rough ridin' clowns
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/28/472192080/the-fbi-has-successfully-unlocked-the-iphone-without-apples-help
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-encryption-meltdown-1458690131-lMyQjAxMTI2NTI1NDYyOTQ0Wj
-
i hope apple takes this as a challenge going forward
-
Tbt in tears right now :bawl:
-
not a good day on the privacy war. it was probably something stupid like this tho, apple will fix it and only come back stronger like 'bias said
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-ios-9-passcode-hack-lets-users-break-photos-contacts-without-unlocking-iphone-2111917
-
probably reached out to annonymous
-
i doubt any hacker groups would help the gov in this matter. there are a lot of human rights things they would help with, but privacy access isnt one of them
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
It has absolutely nothing to do with a dead guy. Once the FBI can break in (and apparently that is now?) then they will be breaking in to any phone they want.
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
there also isnt a lot of precedence with personal data privacy. there are millions of facebook profiles that the owner is dead. based on facebook rules they can't be granted access too without a crap load of red tape, sometimes too much.
this doesnt just apply to what's in your home, most peoples whole lives are in digital form. where is the line? this generation has a chance to set the precedent for years to come that the gov can't just intrude on our privacy.
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
It has absolutely nothing to do with a dead guy. Once the FBI can break in (and apparently that is now?) then they will be breaking in to any phone they want.
You're worried about the government arbitrarily taking your phone from you?
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
there also isnt a lot of precedence with personal data privacy. there are millions of facebook profiles that the owner is dead. based on facebook rules they can't be granted access too without a crap load of red tape, sometimes too much.
this doesnt just apply to what's in your home, most peoples whole lives are in digital form. where is the line? this generation has a chance to set the precedent for years to come that the gov can't just intrude on our privacy.
I don't see how people's whole lives can be in their phones in a way that they can't be in their homes.
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
there also isnt a lot of precedence with personal data privacy. there are millions of facebook profiles that the owner is dead. based on facebook rules they can't be granted access too without a crap load of red tape, sometimes too much.
this doesnt just apply to what's in your home, most peoples whole lives are in digital form. where is the line? this generation has a chance to set the precedent for years to come that the gov can't just intrude on our privacy.
I don't see how people's whole lives can be in their phones in a way that they can't be in their homes.
what is the number 1 way people communicate in todays society? It's text messaging. That is a sudo permanent record of thoughts, feelings, personality, etc. unless you have a flip phone most of your life is on your phone.
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
there also isnt a lot of precedence with personal data privacy. there are millions of facebook profiles that the owner is dead. based on facebook rules they can't be granted access too without a crap load of red tape, sometimes too much.
this doesnt just apply to what's in your home, most peoples whole lives are in digital form. where is the line? this generation has a chance to set the precedent for years to come that the gov can't just intrude on our privacy.
I don't see how people's whole lives can be in their phones in a way that they can't be in their homes.
what is the number 1 way people communicate in todays society? It's text messaging. That is a sudo permanent record of thoughts, feelings, personality, etc. unless you have a flip phone most of your life is on your phone.
I'm asking you to tell me why specifically laws already on the books are insufficient. Like, you don't need a new law that prohibits murder merely because someone just invented a gun.
I don't see good reason to freak out over this.
-
Weird, the weirdos terrified of guns are the same paranoid weirdos who think the government is going to steal their phone contacts
-
There's a privacy issue? Isn't the phone's owner dead? Is it okay for the government to unlock the door to their house and look for crap? How is this different?
there also isnt a lot of precedence with personal data privacy. there are millions of facebook profiles that the owner is dead. based on facebook rules they can't be granted access too without a crap load of red tape, sometimes too much.
this doesnt just apply to what's in your home, most peoples whole lives are in digital form. where is the line? this generation has a chance to set the precedent for years to come that the gov can't just intrude on our privacy.
I don't see how people's whole lives can be in their phones in a way that they can't be in their homes.
what is the number 1 way people communicate in todays society? It's text messaging. That is a sudo permanent record of thoughts, feelings, personality, etc. unless you have a flip phone most of your life is on your phone.
I'm asking you to tell me why specifically laws already on the books are insufficient. Like, you don't need a new law that prohibits murder merely because someone just invented a gun.
I don't see good reason to freak out over this.
I personally don't understand or approve of laws being passed in 1789 being an adequate law for 2016 jurisdiction. The simple fact the FBI was using the All Writs Act should tell you all you need to know about the relevance of the current laws and precedence.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/why-apple-is-fighting-not-to-unlock-iphones-for-the-government/
-
If the government needs information in connection with a criminal investigation, they can get a warrant or subpoena. If Apple doesn't want to cooperate theyou can be held in contempt. It's absurd they won't cooperate.
-
its not apple's job to keep the country safe, its the governments. private companies shouldn't be held accountable for a consumer device that was used in such a way, when the government already monitors the activity.
-
Snitches get stiches, amirite?
Nobody is asking them to secure the world. Just cooperate in a criminal investigation. All companies have to do that.
-
Snitches get stiches, amirite?
Nobody is asking them to secure the world. Just cooperate in a criminal investigation. All companies have to do that.
thats an awful big proposition. why is apple in business? to make money, making their security weak will hurt revenue. is the government going to supplement that? absolutely not.
it should not be on a private company to secure the safety of america.
-
You should read the anti money laundering provisions of the bsa. The Brady bill. Consider any company with video surveillance. Phone records. Etc. Etc.
It's nothing new
-
this isnt the 80's anyone you rough ridin' idiot. phone records :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
:lol:
That's adorable
-
We definitely need two sets of laws. One for crimes and one for the very same crimes when committed via smartphone.
-
FSD and Obama, just two big govemment peas in a pod.
-
The fbiappening is a real thing
-
WTF are you guys doing on your phones?
-
I laughed until I farted when I heard the FBI found a way to hack the phone of amedbernino's cell phone. Now the FBI can use this on any appiephone. Dumb bastards at Apple could have had control but
-
The fbi should post the crack on wired or some other hacker nerd website.
Apple is probably the most anti-competitive, immoral, ruthless and unethical entity out there. I don't understand these jerkoffs who document their whining about "the man" "big corporations" "profiteering" on an iPhone, with the info stored on iCloud for $7 per month. How ignorant can you be.
-
Android runs on 80% of smartphones, but Apple has the market by the balls. Makes sense FSD :lol:
-
I only support businesses that like stiff competition, I agree with FSD.
-
Android runs on 80% of smartphones, but Apple has the market by the balls. Makes sense FSD :lol:
Market share =/ anti-competitive, whiz bang.
Make sense, please
-
:Ugh:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/unlocked-iphone-worthless-after-f-b-i-spills-glass-of-water-on-it
-
good grief edn
-
:lol: maybe edn and FSD have something in common after all.
-
http://www.htssite.com/2016/03/after-only-72-hours-fbi-has-already-started-helping-other-police-department-gain-access-to-iphone.html
-
:lol: maybe edn and FSD have something in common after all.
good grief edn
:facepalm:
-
http://www.htssite.com/2016/03/after-only-72-hours-fbi-has-already-started-helping-other-police-department-gain-access-to-iphone.html
This one is really on Apple. You basically just said you were responsible for protecting your phones/users. Figure out your own vulnerabilities guys.
-
http://www.htssite.com/2016/03/after-only-72-hours-fbi-has-already-started-helping-other-police-department-gain-access-to-iphone.html
This one is really on Apple. You basically just said you were responsible for protecting your phones/users. Figure out your own vulnerabilities guys.
I like the idea of Apple suing the government to find out how they were able to breach the phone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-23/thank-you-for-hacking-iphone-now-tell-apple-how-you-did-it
-
So the FBI might have to disclose unless there is a national security reason to keep it secret. Not the exact same situation obviously, but you can expect the FBI will be using Apple's same arguments this round.
-
If the government needs information in connection with a criminal investigation, they can get a warrant or subpoena. If Apple doesn't want to cooperate theyou can be held in contempt. It's absurd they won't cooperate.
While I agree with you in principle, unless I'm mistaken, there was no warrant or subpoena issued in this case. The guy is dead.
-
If the government needs information in connection with a criminal investigation, they can get a warrant or subpoena. If Apple doesn't want to cooperate theyou can be held in contempt. It's absurd they won't cooperate.
While I agree with you in principle, unless I'm mistaken, there was no warrant or subpoena issued in this case. The guy is dead.
I don't think they were trying to extract information from his corpse. Could be mistaken though.
-
It would be like if a Weiser lock was on a closet, and there was material evidence in the closet, and Weiser told the cops they wouldn't help unlock the door because of the principle of the matter (they sell locks so people can lock others out).
It's absurd, and Apple should be forced to reimburse the FBI for every nickel they wasted cracking the phone. That's what happens to people who obstruct the legal process.
-
I think everything worked out perfectly here. Apple got to say, "eff you, government." Government got to reply, "eff me? NO, eff YOU!" Everyone wins.
-
FBI is.helping Arkiesaw poleece men crack into an apple phone. Hillbillies will bring snooty above the law applers to their ruin. FBI should not give apple anything.
-
once you figure out how to unlock it, it will never be used just once. proves my point exactly, eff the government. this will help apple beef up the security in the long run, right now it looks shitty.
-
once you figure out how to unlock it, it will never be used just once. proves my point exactly, eff the government. this will help apple beef up the security in the long run, right now it looks shitty.
No. The government has to get a search warrant first
-
once you figure out how to unlock it, it will never be used just once. proves my point exactly, eff the government. this will help apple beef up the security in the long run, right now it looks shitty.
No. The government has to get a search warrant first
the whole point of them going to apple was so they could get into this ONE phone, thats it, and then they would never use it again. if apple would have given in and showed the government how to crack it, they would have done the same thing, spread how to unlock them. this doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out.
-
Was the government asking Apple to show them how to unlock it or merely to unlock it?
-
FBI wanted them to write a program to unlock it. They refused
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I WAS mistaken earlier. There was a search warrant issued. Shows what I know.
Anyhow, I still think Apple was right here. Frankly, I'm a little confused about how staunchly pro-business, anti-big-government people could be against apple here. Compelling a private entity (any private entity) to build something to make it easier for the government to access individuals' information seems about as anti-conservative as you can get.
-
the people you described are known as fascists. They are the ones voting in record numbers for Drumpf.
-
I WAS mistaken earlier. There was a search warrant issued. Shows what I know.
Anyhow, I still think Apple was right here. Frankly, I'm a little confused about how staunchly pro-business, anti-big-government people could be against apple here. Compelling a private entity (any private entity) to build something to make it easier for the government to access individuals' information seems about as anti-conservative as you can get.
Apple seems too left wing to have their support in anything. If Garth Brooks would refuse to unlock that closet in that shitty analogy FSD tried to use, they would support Garth's freedoms
-
Wow, the douchebag bug is out in force today. What a bunch of paranoid mean spirited little twerps.
Expecting mega corporations to cooperate with law enforcement is so pro-government antibusiness :rolleyes:
I don't know if Apple was subpoenaed or just requested to cooperate. If they were subpoenaed they could have recovered costs (at least in the civil since, not sure on criminal). Or, they could have unlocked the phone for the cops. Either is de minimus to them, and pales in comparison to the legal war trust they deploy in anti competitive patent litigation (is a rectangle shaped phone proprietary?). This is no different than when a gas station turns over its surveillance tapes.
But yeah, keep railing against the man and trotting out your conflated flase analogies. You'll get me yet!
-
I WAS mistaken earlier. There was a search warrant issued. Shows what I know.
Anyhow, I still think Apple was right here. Frankly, I'm a little confused about how staunchly pro-business, anti-big-government people could be against apple here. Compelling a private entity (any private entity) to build something to make it easier for the government to access individuals' information seems about as anti-conservative as you can get.
lol, your first point doesn't follow the second Sounds like a rough ridin' 1L happy hour. :ROFL:
-
Just to be clear, you think the state should have the power to force private businesses (against their will) to build something in order to make the government's job easier? I honestly don't know how you can reconcile that with conservative values.
-
Just to be clear, you think the state should have the power to force private businesses (against their will) to build something in order to make the government's job easier? I honestly don't know how you can reconcile that with conservative values.
I don't think conservative is the correct word here. Libertarian perhaps.
-
Just to be clear, you think the state should have the power to force private businesses (against their will) to build something in order to make the government's job easier? I honestly don't know how you can reconcile that with conservative values.
I don't think conservative is the correct word here. Libertarian perhaps.
Certainly libertarian, but I think there's absolutely crossover in this case. Just seems like an odd contradiction to me.
-
Just to be clear, you think the state should have the power to force private businesses (against their will) to build something in order to make the government's job easier? I honestly don't know how you can reconcile that with conservative values.
Do I think a company should be obligated to cooperate with our criminal justice system? Yes. I'm not sure why you think the line ends at electronics company. Everybody else cooperates or they get fined or go to jail for contempt.
I don't know what this "conservative values" stuff is, or why it's relevant. Seems like a non partisan issue. I don't think conservatives are anti rule of law. Maybe in your perverted pov that's what it is.
You seem fixated on the fact they would have had to "build" something. I think that's a pretty silly dintinction coming from a bunch of people who are so impressed with how smart they are.
-
They wanted Apple to both create a door and give them the key. That is pretty big brother type behavior, but not necessarily anti-conservative since it is in the name of national security. Most conservatives don't give a crap about spending or size of government when it comes to bombing or spying on terrorists.
-
Just to be clear, you think the state should have the power to force private businesses (against their will) to build something in order to make the government's job easier? I honestly don't know how you can reconcile that with conservative values.
Do I think a company should be obligated to cooperate with our criminal justice system? Yes. I'm not sure why you think the line ends at electronics company. Everybody else cooperates or they get fined or go to jail for contempt.
I don't know what this "conservative values" stuff is, or why it's relevant. Seems like a non partisan issue. I don't think conservatives are anti rule of law. Maybe in your perverted pov that's what it is.
You seem fixated on the fact they would have had to "build" something. I think that's a pretty silly dintinction coming from a bunch of people who are so impressed with how smart they are.
If you can't at least agree that being required to build something that fundamentally makes your product (which holds people's private information) less secure is a little more onerous than merely turning over documents, allowing a search of your premises, or sharing information, then there's really nothing else to discuss.
-
Acting like Apple is anti rule of law is absurd. Following the court system's designated path to challenge a subpoena seems about as rule of law as it gets.
-
Dumbass FSD thinks they could probably use notepad to break OS level security :lol:
-
FSD: I think it's working :lol:
(define ?
(let ([? (lambda (f) (f f))])
(? ?)))
-
I'm glad we've narrowed the debate to the minutia of whether:
Apple reasonably moved to quash the subpoena, and
Whether law enforcement was really only asking Apple to crack this phone as subterfuge to obtian the skeleton key it needs spy on everyone in the u.s.
Such brilliant minds we have over here. :flush: Don't let the black helicopters confuse you, this isn't about finding the people who perpetuated these atrocities, it's about protecting the privacy of millions of people's snap chat accounts. :blindfold:
-
Just to be clear, you think the state should have the power to force private businesses (against their will) to build something in order to make the government's job easier? I honestly don't know how you can reconcile that with conservative values.
Do I think a company should be obligated to cooperate with our criminal justice system? Yes. I'm not sure why you think the line ends at electronics company. Everybody else cooperates or they get fined or go to jail for contempt.
I don't know what this "conservative values" stuff is, or why it's relevant. Seems like a non partisan issue. I don't think conservatives are anti rule of law. Maybe in your perverted pov that's what it is.
You seem fixated on the fact they would have had to "build" something. I think that's a pretty silly dintinction coming from a bunch of people who are so impressed with how smart they are.
Do you think journalists should be compelled to tell sources?
-
At the risk of contributing to one of Edna's non-sequiturs, I respond as follows:
I am completely ignorant of a journalist's ethical duties with respect to his sources, but suspect such duties are fleeting. I think if their are circumstances upon which an attorney can reveal confidential client information, there probably are circumstances when a journalist can be compelled to produce sources (e.g., prevent a homicide or battery).
If it's important enough to prejudice a client, it's important enough to obtain from a dipshit journalist.
-
At the risk of contributing to one of Edna's non-sequiturs, I respond as follows:
I am completely ignorant of a journalist's ethical duties with respect to his sources, but suspect such duties are fleeting. I think if their are circumstances upon which an attorney can reveal confidential client information, there probably are circumstances when a journalist can be compelled to produce sources (e.g., prevent a homicide or battery).
If it's important enough to prejudice a client, it's important enough to obtain from a dipshit journalist.
So both (journalists and lawyers) are supposed to act (tell) if a crime is imminent (roughly). But that's not quite what I'm getting act. This isn't like a journalist got a call from the San Berno shooters saying get ready to write your story at 3pm on Saturday. Lets say the one of the shooters survived and the journalist met the shooter after the incident for an interview. Should the journalist be compelled to tell law enforcement where the shooter is? /this is totally your opinion
-
while i think businesses should cooperate with the government during criminal investigations once called upon to do so, i think there should be a reasonable limit for what "cooperation" entails. i don't think a company should be compelled to create a completely new product because the government tells them to, as is the case here.
-
while i think businesses should cooperate with the government during criminal investigations once called upon to do so, i think there should be a reasonable limit for what "cooperation" entails. i don't think a company should be compelled to create a completely new product because the government tells them to, as is the case here.
That is the current law, and not what was going on here.
-
At the risk of contributing to one of Edna's non-sequiturs, I respond as follows:
I am completely ignorant of a journalist's ethical duties with respect to his sources, but suspect such duties are fleeting. I think if their are circumstances upon which an attorney can reveal confidential client information, there probably are circumstances when a journalist can be compelled to produce sources (e.g., prevent a homicide or battery).
If it's important enough to prejudice a client, it's important enough to obtain from a dipshit journalist.
So both (journalists and lawyers) are supposed to act (tell) if a crime is imminent (roughly). But that's not quite what I'm getting act. This isn't like a journalist got a call from the San Berno shooters saying get ready to write your story at 3pm on Saturday. Lets say the one of the shooters survived and the journalist met the shooter after the incident for an interview. Should the journalist be compelled to tell law enforcement where the shooter is? /this is totally your opinion
If the person is plotting another mass homicide, yes. If the person is hiding in the journalists home or at his office, yes. If they don't believe there is any imminent threat of danger, maybe not. I don't really understand a journalists motives not to disclose their location in this scenario. Profits/prestige?
-
At the risk of contributing to one of Edna's non-sequiturs, I respond as follows:
I am completely ignorant of a journalist's ethical duties with respect to his sources, but suspect such duties are fleeting. I think if their are circumstances upon which an attorney can reveal confidential client information, there probably are circumstances when a journalist can be compelled to produce sources (e.g., prevent a homicide or battery).
If it's important enough to prejudice a client, it's important enough to obtain from a dipshit journalist.
So both (journalists and lawyers) are supposed to act (tell) if a crime is imminent (roughly). But that's not quite what I'm getting act. This isn't like a journalist got a call from the San Berno shooters saying get ready to write your story at 3pm on Saturday. Lets say the one of the shooters survived and the journalist met the shooter after the incident for an interview. Should the journalist be compelled to tell law enforcement where the shooter is? /this is totally your opinion
If the person is plotting another mass homicide, yes. If the person is hiding in the journalists home or at his office, yes. If they don't believe there is any imminent threat of danger, maybe not. I don't really understand a journalists motives not to disclose their location in this scenario. Profits/prestige?
The goal is free and open exchange of information without the fear of government punishment or intrusion or other types of reprisals. Deep Throat isn't coming to the surface without some anonymity (obviously the other extreme of free press).
I'm just trying to get a feel for where you think the government should be able to compel someone to do something against their will.
-
Criminal procedure in this country is arcane and ever evolving. Criminals have far more protections here than they do about anywhere else in the world. There is no reason for me to re-write the law or attempt to understand or explain it's many nuances.
I think this thread is demonstrative of two things: 1) an ignorance of the existing protections in place, and 2) an unfounded paranoia that the government has nothing better to do than eaves drop upon trite and meaningless lives. If these libtards were truly scared of that, they'd be smart to insist drastically curtailing the size of the federal government. There's no reason it's employees should be spending all their time peaking in cyber windows.
-
You do realize that a large number of the people bitching about this are right of you, right? Hardly libtards.
-
Cool story, bruh
-
while i think businesses should cooperate with the government during criminal investigations once called upon to do so, i think there should be a reasonable limit for what "cooperation" entails. i don't think a company should be compelled to create a completely new product because the government tells them to, as is the case here.
That is the current law, and not what was going on here.
except that it is, because software is a product. the govt was trying to compel apple to create a new piece of software that never existed prior to their request. imo, that steps outside of the bounds of a reasonable expectation of "cooperation."
-
Designing and application to unlock a phone isn't the same as designing software like quickbooks.
Apple is the bad actor here. Theyou are always the bad actor. They spend millions of dollars per year in absurd patent litigating to keep phones and other technology out of the u.s.
This silly little program probably would have cost a few dozen hours of employee time.
-
Designing and application to unlock a phone isn't the same as designing software like quickbooks.
It doesn't matter if it's flappy bird or labVIEW. The point is that it's a product, and a dangerous one at that.
-
its pointless trying to get FSD to understand, its never gonna happen
-
its pointless trying to get FSD to understand, its never gonna happen
I don't think he understands exactly what encryption is.
FSD Apple doesn't have keys or a skeleton key to the encryption on the phone. It would have to spend a great deal of time and effort to design a way around that.
-
The hacks at the fbi didn't seem to have any problem with it :lol:
-
The hacks at the fbi didn't seem to have any problem with it :lol:
the FBI didn't break it, a third party did.
-
For the FSD types that think government intrusion into regular individuals' privacy is some far fetched, conspiracy theory, I'd encourage you to do a little research on Stingray Surveillance that is employed at the local police department levels. I thought that it was mostly tin-foil hat stuff too until I looked into that.
-
Oh boy, conflating concepts and non sequiter. Oh goE, don't ever change.
Hey Drew, I'd encourage you and other proponents of anarchy to read up on the English civil war of 1600 and something
-
Oh boy, conflating concepts and non sequiter. Oh goE, don't ever change.
Hey Drew, I'd encourage you and other proponents of anarchy to read up on the English civil war of 1600 and something
I'd like for you to read up on laws passed about that long ago trying to force Apple to comply.
-
Oh boy, conflating concepts and non sequiter. Oh goE, don't ever change.
Hey Drew, I'd encourage you and other proponents of anarchy to read up on the English civil war of 1600 and something
It's "Dlew," pal! :curse:
-
Regardless, the gov having a third party crack it is the ultimate slap in the face to apple.
-
I would imagine there has been a hack out there for quite some time. They probably went to the FBI with an equitable proposal.
-
This is just absurd. Don't let fear drive you to be unreasonable. Whoever even first discussed the possibility of this bill is a rough ridin' idiot.
The writers of this bill have no rough ridin' idea how any of this works. They probably couldn't operate a jitter bug with instructions. This is the type of thing that opens us up to being the least secure industrial country in the world.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/technology/burr-feinstein-bill-encryption/index.html
-
Seems like Apple was asking for it.
But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.
-
Seems like Apple was asking for it.
But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.
So laws should be passed as a vendetta when you fight the government over laws 250 year old? That's rough ridin' stupid
How about you put your DOB and SSN in this thread for everyone to see, that's what this bill is doing to anyone with a smartphone.
-
Seems like Apple was asking for it.
But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.
So laws should be passed as a vendetta when you fight the government over laws 250 year old? That's rough ridin' stupid
How about you put your DOB and SSN in this thread for everyone to see, that's what this bill is doing to anyone with a smartphone.
Weren't you just talking about not letting fear drive you to be unreasonable?
-
How am I being unreasonable? I was just telling you what this bill is going to do.
-
This is just absurd. Don't let fear drive you to be unreasonable. Whoever even first discussed the possibility of this bill is a rough ridin' idiot.
The writers of this bill have no rough ridin' idea how any of this works. They probably couldn't operate a jitter bug with instructions. This is the type of thing that opens us up to being the least secure industrial country in the world.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/technology/burr-feinstein-bill-encryption/index.html
Let's leave them to the stuff they know like climate change and energy
-
Is anyone surprised known Nazi Diane Feinstein is a sponsor of this bill?
-
Welp they didn't find crap, but let's pass a law so next time we can unlock the phone faster to find nothing. What a rough ridin' waste of money, but now the government has the real prize in sight! A skeleton key that hackers will find and use to access everybody's crap. :flush: :flush: :flush:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/turns-nothing-substantial-san-bernardino-143331633.html
-
Welp they didn't find crap, but let's pass a law so next time we can unlock the phone faster to find nothing. What a rough ridin' waste of money, but now the government has the real prize in sight! A skeleton key that hackers will find and use to access everybody's crap. :flush: :flush: :flush:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/turns-nothing-substantial-san-bernardino-143331633.html
Federal legislation iso beyond absurd. We already have a judicial system equipped to handle this issue. What an absurd overreach
-
Every decent hacker already had access to your phone.
-
Every decent hacker already had access to your phone.
Mcafee says anyone could do it
-
Aiming to have an absolutely impenetrable lock screen is like aiming to have a front door on your house that can withstand any attack by conventional weapons. Neither necessary nor sufficient for security.
-
Just the last 6 digits of your SSN chum1, it's still kind of secure
-
I never lock my screen. I don't have a lock on my wallet either. I live life on the edge, baby!
-
When big hacker comes in and steals your whole life I hope you feel the same way
-
Screw big hacker I think I might just help myself to chums identity
-
Looks like 1.4% of US smart phone users had a lost or stolen phone last year.
:ohno:
-
Yet, you wouldn't object to the government having access to 100% of them. The lack of knowledge of how any of this works is just astonishing.
-
Yet, you wouldn't object to the government having access to 100% of them. The lack of knowledge of how any of this works is just astonishing.
Maybe you should educate me. Here's what I've said:
But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.
-
Yet, you wouldn't object to the government having access to 100% of them. The lack of knowledge of how any of this works is just astonishing.
Maybe you should educate me. Here's what I've said:
But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.
The security field is ever evolving in the IT world. It takes an army of people to keep up with hackers and people that want to steal our data.
Retailers like Target and Home Depot probably thought 'good enough' was fine for their customers security.
https://securityintelligence.com/the-top-5-retail-breaches/
The fact remains that good enough, is not secure. Retailers use websites, that are built for e-commerce, to interact with consumers. That is one portal for hackers to target. Now think about using the very device consumers use to access those sites. Not only do you open up the people that shop, but also every single person that uses that device.
Apple recently said they now have over a billion active devices around the world.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/26/10835748/apple-devices-active-1-billion-iphone-ipad-ios
So, instead of the 300+ million people that could potentially visit Targets site, which maybe 10% do a year, you have 10x that.
Some of those people have nothing to do with those retailers, but because they simply have the device that runs the same software as the other billion, they are at risk. Creating a back door for the government may seem like a way to protect us, but it opens us up even more to attack.
-
Yet, you wouldn't object to the government having access to 100% of them. The lack of knowledge of how any of this works is just astonishing.
Maybe you should educate me. Here's what I've said:
But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.
The security field is ever evolving in the IT world. It takes an army of people to keep up with hackers and people that want to steal our data.
Retailers like Target and Home Depot probably thought 'good enough' was fine for their customers security.
https://securityintelligence.com/the-top-5-retail-breaches/
The fact remains that good enough, is not secure. Retailers use websites, that are built for e-commerce, to interact with consumers. That is one portal for hackers to target. Now think about using the very device consumers use to access those sites. Not only do you open up the people that shop, but also every single person that uses that device.
Apple recently said they now have over a billion active devices around the world.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/26/10835748/apple-devices-active-1-billion-iphone-ipad-ios
So, instead of the 300+ million people that could potentially visit Targets site, which maybe 10% do a year, you have 10x that.
Some of those people have nothing to do with those retailers, but because they simply have the device that runs the same software as the other billion, they are at risk. Creating a back door for the government may seem like a way to protect us, but it opens us up even more to attack.
Does this have anything to do with lock screens? Because I was talking about lock screens. I also didn't say anything about what I think the government should or shouldn't do.
-
Take away the fingerprint scanner and reduce the lock code to 2 digits. So yes, it does, dumbass.
-
Take away the fingerprint scanner and reduce the lock code to 2 digits. So yes, it does, dumbass.
I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.
-
Take away the fingerprint scanner and reduce the lock code to 2 digits. So yes, it does, dumbass.
I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.
I'm not surprised by that honestly. There is a pretty big disconnect between you and anything technology related, and that's ok. You just go about your life, and the smart people will worry about protecting it.
-
Take away the fingerprint scanner and reduce the lock code to 2 digits. So yes, it does, dumbass.
I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.
I'm not surprised by that honestly. There is a pretty big disconnect between you and anything technology related, and that's ok. You just go about your life, and the smart people will worry about protecting it.
OMG
-
Big hacker doesn't care about lock screens or fingerprint scanners.
-
i'm starting to think tbt is the one that has no idea how any of this works and it's not that astonishing really
-
I mean I'm no Saul or Chings, but I did take more than one computer class at KSU :dunno:
-
If you didn't see this on 60 min:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hacking-your-phone/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hacking-your-phone/)
-
I mean I'm no Saul or Chings, but I did take more than one computer class at KSU :dunno:
Is that where you learned about the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches? I must not have had that "computer class."
-
I mean I'm no Saul or Chings, but I did take more than one computer class at KSU :dunno:
Is that where you learned about the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches? I must not have had that "computer class."
:lol:
If you only knew. :lol:
-
I mean I'm no Saul or Chings, but I did take more than one computer class at KSU :dunno:
Is that where you learned about the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches? I must not have had that "computer class."
:lol:
If you only knew. :lol:
You're full of crap.
-
:lol:
-
TBT: confirmed tech poser
-
I will say, I absolutely know what I am talking about.
-
I will say, I absolutely know what I am talking about.
Why can't you explain it?
-
I will say, I absolutely know what I am talking about.
Why can't you explain it?
Security reasons. Should be apparent. Show up at FF16, and maybe I will explain
-
Does this have anything to do with lock screens? Because I was talking about lock screens.
I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.
the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches
Why can't you explain it?
-
Idk why you quoted those same posts. It's less secure than last year
-
Lol @ChooChoo in this thread.
-
Lol @ChooChoo in this thread.
Hope the studies are going well bud :thumbs: