Personal privacy v national security

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

While true, I don't see this as particularly persuasive. It's a little like saying we should get rid of birth control pills because it's not as if unintended pregnancies will be more prevalent than they were before the pill was invented.

It's like you saying that. But you did modify it by saying "a little". It's considerably less than "a little"...IMO nothing like it at all. The false equivalency flag is unfurled and flying at full staff. The big garrison size Sunday flag as well.

Did we have all this tearing of hair, wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the back door in every smartphone in the world prior to late 2014? December 2014, when Apple released it's latest effort to wipe out the competition...the IOS with the deep encryption? Outside of the hysterical privacy geeks with no life...we did not.

Cook knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the new IOS would hamstring law enforcement from developing evidence in terrorism cases, gangbang cases, child abduction cases...almost any criminal enterprise where evidence could be found in a smartphone, which is pretty much every criminal enterprise these days. And Cook didn't give a shit on Steve Job's grave for anything but his fucking market share and finally crawling up over Google in the smartphone market.

Mr. Cook is a real first rate, second rate guy.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Cook knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the new IOS would hamstring law enforcement from developing evidence in terrorism cases, gangbang cases, child abduction cases...almost any criminal enterprise where evidence could be found in a smartphone, which is pretty much every criminal enterprise these days. And Cook didn't give a shit on Steve Job's grave for anything but his fucking market share and finally crawling up over Google in the smartphone market.

Mr. Cook is a real first rate, second rate guy.

Agreed. Look anyone who keeps all sorts of personal and potentially costly info on a PC or an iPhone is a barking idiot just asking to be ripped off.

[finnbow]

Michael Hayden, the only guy who has been both NSA and CIA chief, comes down largely in favor of Apple's position. He has said that "on balance, American national security is better served with effective end-to-end encryption" largely because cybercrime is widely considered to be a much bigger national security threat than terrorism and compelling Apple to weaken end-to-end encryption would open the door to this greater threat.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Michael Hayden, the only guy who has been both NSA and CIA chief, comes down largely in favor of Apple's position. He has said that "on balance, American national security is better served with effective end-to-end encryption" largely because cybercrime is widely considered to be a much bigger national security threat than terrorism and compelling Apple to weaken end-to-end encryption would open the door to this greater threat.

This controversy is just another manifestation of bin Laden's philosophy of lighting a small fire and then sitting back while we piss all over ourselves to put it out.

[finnbow]

A federal judge in New York ruled in favor of Apple on Monday, saying that an obscure Colonial-era law did not authorize him to force the firm to lift data from an iPhone at the government’s request.

The ruling is not binding in any other court, but it takes on an outsize importance as the U.S. government battles Apple in a separate case in California over whether the tech firm should help unlock a phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack in December.

The two cases involve different versions of iPhone’s operating system and vastly different requests for technical help, but they both turn on whether a law from 1789 known as the All Writs Act can be applied to cases in which the government cannot get at encrypted data stored on suspects’ devices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...82d_story.html

[d-ray657]

Judicial writs might be old, but they are not archaic. They provide a basis for judicial action that is sometimes necessary to fill in the gaps. Several times in my career, I have been involved in litigation involving a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, and of course, a writ of certiorari.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

All this talk of personal privacy is just that - talk. There is no such thing as personal privacy in this country. My former daughter-in-law thinking she could get her hands on my late wife's life insurance hired an ambulance chaser. In his letter he quotes an article from her will. Now I did register her will, law requires it. But does that mean that the county will give copies to every Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it?

[donquixote99]

Wills become public record after they are filed for probate. In general, after the probate case is closed, if there is one. State laws as always vary.

[merrylander]

There was no probate as everything was in both names. What purpose is served by making everything public?

[donquixote99]

Don't know, but I suppose they are public because court records are public, mainly. It does provide public evidence of the transfer of title to things.