91–100 of 183 posts
Before you comment, please consider whether you'd prefer to vent your frustration in online message boards with like-minded people, or spend that potential energy in other ways: "What you can do about it: -- You can contact the Obama White House online to comment on strong encryption. https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/share-your-thoughts-onstr... -- You can contact your state Senators and Representatives via the con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So how DO you disrupt criminal plots, then? Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? Suppose they meet in person to conspire. Would you suggest having every citizen carry un-blockeable microphones just in case? This is not a "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" kinda issue, this is "are we willing to build a police state if it reduced the risk of certain crimes by X%? Even at the cost…
>But actually, an ankle bracelet that reports your location and audio might actually be less invasive of your private conversations in today's world that reporting the contents of your phone. Not at all. I have the choice to carry / use a phone.
Before you comment, please consider whether you'd prefer to vent your frustration in online message boards with like-minded people, or spend that potential energy in other ways: "What you can do about it: -- You can contact the Obama White House online to comment on strong encryption. https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/share-your-thoughts-onstr... -- You can contact your state Senators and Representatives via the con…
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/voices-advocacy-tool/id96569...
It seems clear to me that if all the money we spent on fighting terrorism since 9/11 were instead spent on, say, reducing traffic fatalities, it would have saved a lot more people.
"The US spends more than $500 million per victim on anti-terrorism efforts. However, cancer research spending is only $10,000 per victim."
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism...
Ok so replace "ankle bracelets" with "GPS/cell triangulated device" and it's a ridiculous example because what, things that are already real aren't really "examples"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is: if encryption is illegal and you encrypt your illegal material so law enforcement can't convict you for it, they can still convict you for using encryption.
Which is such a great idea, because proper encryption is undistinguishable from random data: so, if you have a drive, any drive, good luck convincing anyone that it does not contain any encrypted content, and that whatever is in the empty sectors is just garbage. Guilty until proven innocent.
[1] https://www.google.com.br/search?q=appelbaum+right+to+be+ent...
>PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If, technologically, it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that 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? It's so disappointing to me to hear a quote like that from the President.
Before you comment, please consider whether you'd prefer to vent your frustration in online message boards with like-minded people, or spend that potential energy in other ways: "What you can do about it: -- You can contact the Obama White House online to comment on strong encryption. https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/share-your-thoughts-onstr... -- You can contact your state Senators and Representatives via the con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the weirdest thing is that Apple is standing up to the government. Isn't that just wrong? You, the people choose the government, so in effect Apple is standing up to the people of America and saying 'no'. If you the people didn't want the FBI to be bullish then choose a different government. It feels to me (an outsider) that it's the government that is out of control and is not accountable to the people.
It seems like the country is 50-50 divided on this. But more importantly, individual liberty is more important than majority rule. When the founding fathers created this country, they cared deeply about individual liberty, and worried about a tyranny of the majority. Even if a super-majority wants to deprive an individual or a minority group of its rights, they should not be allowed to. A free country's first commitm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like the country is 50-50 divided on this. But more importantly, individual liberty is more important than majority rule. When the founding fathers created this country, they cared deeply about individual liberty, and worried about a tyranny of the majority. Even if a super-majority wants to deprive an individual or a minority group of its rights, they should not be allowed to. A free country's first commitm…
by definition a democracy is a tyranny of majority.... i think you mean secondary to the republic