Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    19 Feb '16 23:31
    Who's right and who's wrong as my Con Law professor used to say:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/opinions/apple-vs-fbi-on-encryption-bergen/index.html
  2. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    20 Feb '16 00:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Who's right and who's wrong as my Con Law professor used to say:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/opinions/apple-vs-fbi-on-encryption-bergen/index.html
    I have to come down in favor of privacy, and Apple. If the government beats Apple on this, there will be no such thing as personal privacy.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    20 Feb '16 01:062 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Who's right and who's wrong as my Con Law professor used to say:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/opinions/apple-vs-fbi-on-encryption-bergen/index.html
    Suppositions:
    Secure cellular communication benefits dissident groups worldwide, whether they are good guys or bad guys. Access to dissidents' cellular communications benefits ruling regimes worldwide, whether they are good guys of bad guys.

    Edit: Also, for whichever side loses on this issue, the internet will become a tool the enemy, a tool to be attacked.

    Who should benefit?
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Feb '16 01:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Who's right and who's wrong as my Con Law professor used to say:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/opinions/apple-vs-fbi-on-encryption-bergen/index.html
    Easy, I'm right and you're wrong.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Feb '16 01:33
    Originally posted by JS357
    Suppositions:
    Secure cellular communication benefits dissident groups worldwide, whether they are good guys or bad guys. Access to dissidents' cellular communications benefits ruling regimes worldwide, whether they are good guys of bad guys.

    Edit: Also, for whichever side loses on this issue, the internet will become a tool the enemy, a tool to be attacked.

    Who should benefit?
    The NY Times article I read brought up exactly that point (which our Presidential candidates seemed to miss): Apple is a world wide company and IF they accede to US government demands to supply technology that will defeat their encryption methods, sooner or later they would have to do the same for other governments such as Iran's or (more likely) China's.

    I think it's an easy call.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Feb '16 01:34
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I have to come down in favor of privacy, and Apple. If the government beats Apple on this, there will be no such thing as personal privacy.
    Of course they will beat apple. Who can reign in government? Who has the power? Certainly not the citizens.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Feb '16 01:411 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Of course they will beat apple. Who can reign in government? Who has the power? Certainly not the citizens.
    BROKEN RECORD ALERT.

    Do you have anything meaningful to say about the case? Your "limited government" hero, Ted Cruz, says Apple should do as they are told BTW.http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/ted-cruz-says-apple-needs-to-comply-with
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Feb '16 03:59
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    BROKEN RECORD ALERT.

    Do you have anything meaningful to say about the case? Your "limited government" hero, Ted Cruz, says Apple should do as they are told BTW.http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/ted-cruz-says-apple-needs-to-comply-with
    I'm well aware of what he said and I disagree with what he said.

    Unlike you, my heroes don't reside within government.

    How if you don't mind, I feel like quoting Thomas Paine

    "Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most preposterous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors in their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling to dust."

    This is what collectivism in the US has brought us back to, a king.
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    20 Feb '16 04:33
    The problem with crackable encryption for the internet is that vast numbers of financial transaction happen over it. If financial transactions are not secure against the NSA and their counterparts across the world they aren't secure against criminal enterprises. Adding a "back door" means adding a vulnerability that can be exploited by a fourth party (the first three being an individual, their bank, and a national security service). If they compromise the electronic security involved it's difficult to see how people can retain confidence in the security of e-commerce. So I really don't think that this is practical.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Feb '16 04:481 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I'm well aware of what he said and I disagree with what he said.

    Unlike you, my heroes don't reside within government.

    How if you don't mind, I feel like quoting Thomas Paine

    "Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most preposterous invention the Devil ...[text shortened]... or is crumbling to dust."

    This is what collectivism in the US has brought us back to, a king.
    Tom Paine knew very well the difference between a King and a representative democratic republic even if you don't.

    Since TP proposed a type of a governmental social welfare program in Rights of Man, I'm sure by your definition he'd be a "collectivist" (whatever that means) too.
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    20 Feb '16 05:32
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    The problem with crackable encryption for the internet is that vast numbers of financial transaction happen over it. If financial transactions are not secure against the NSA and their counterparts across the world they aren't secure against criminal enterprises. Adding a "back door" means adding a vulnerability that can be exploited by a fourth party ( ...[text shortened]... etain confidence in the security of e-commerce. So I really don't think that this is practical.
    It may be that the internet is a phase we are going through, that will prove itself inadequate against threats. After all, things got done before we had it. It's a grand experiment.
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    20 Feb '16 06:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The NY Times article I read brought up exactly that point (which our Presidential candidates seemed to miss): Apple is a world wide company and IF they accede to US government demands to supply technology that will defeat their encryption methods, sooner or later they would have to do the same for other governments such as Iran's or (more likely) China's.

    I think it's an easy call.
    You raised the matter as a matter of constitutional law. I think we may agree on what is in our national interests. Support Apple. But I am not sure. Do you think that the control/elimination of dissidence by governments like Iran and China by accessing dissident communications is not in American (or your) interests? And since you raised it as a constitutional issue, I am interested in your view from that perspective. No hostility intended or implied, just here to learn. It's perfect for reasoned debate, Whodey aside.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Feb '16 08:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Who's right and who's wrong as my Con Law professor used to say:
    I would say that it is not within the governments (or a judges) rights to demand that a company decrypt a phone for them. They could ask Apple nicely and if it is declined they should hire someone else to have a go.
    If they believe encryption should be either disallowed or have a back-door for the government then they should get laws passed to that effect - with the approval of the populace.
    We should however see such laws as being equivalent to the government requiring you to carry a tracking device with a miniature bug installed recording your every word and a camera taking pictures now and then all available to the government at their whim - and as usual without any real oversight and extreme secrecy as to when they make use of such powers.
    The biggest problem the US has today is that the secret services are so secretive that they are undemocratic ie the people don't get to decide what they can or cannot do because what they can or cannot do is a secret.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Feb '16 08:351 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    You raised the matter as a matter of constitutional law. I think we may agree on what is in our national interests. Support Apple. But I am not sure. Do you think that the control/elimination of dissidence by governments like Iran and China by accessing dissident communications is not in American (or your) interests? And since you raised it as a constitutional ...[text shortened]... stility intended or implied, just here to learn. It's perfect for reasoned debate, Whodey aside.
    I do not consider it in my best interests that dissidents be suppressed anywhere as long as A) They are expressing dissent in a non-violent way against a democratic government; or B) However they are expressing dissent against a non-democratic one or a democratic one acting as a tyranny.

    I wasn't expressing the matter as merely one of constitutional law. Measures can be unwise or vile even if they do not cross constitutional lines. I am skeptical that Apple will prevail on First Amendment grounds.
  15. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    20 Feb '16 11:25
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I would say that it is not within the governments (or a judges) rights to demand that a company decrypt a phone for them. They could ask Apple nicely and if it is declined they should hire someone else to have a go.
    If they believe encryption should be either disallowed or have a back-door for the government then they should get laws passed to that effec ...[text shortened]... e don't get to decide what they can or cannot do because what they can or cannot do is a secret.
    What is the difference between a judge granting a search warrant and a judge making a ruling that an individual must reveal a password that allows a file to be decrypted. I realise that the mechanics are somewhat different, but I don't see that legally they are all that dissimilar.
Back to Top