Hope worms hack off.your.encrypted Apple.

[chum1]

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.

[renocat]

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.

[The Big Train]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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 Big Train]

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.

[chum1]

Was the government asking Apple to show them how to unlock it or merely to unlock it?

[Cire]

FBI wanted them to write a program to unlock it. They refused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

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.

[wetwillie]

the people you described are known as fascists.  They are the ones voting in record numbers for Drumpf.

[ChiComCat]

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

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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   

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!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[CHONGS]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[ChiComCat]

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.

[The Big Train]

Dumbass FSD thinks they could probably use notepad to break OS level security 

[The Big Train]

FSD:  I think it's working 

Code: [Select]

(define ?
  (let ([? (lambda (f) (f f))])
    (? ?)))

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.    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. 

[ednksu]

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?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[ednksu]

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