271–280 of 417 posts
Okay, good. I'm glad that we've now tested out the security of our devices and found that they are secure enough to vex government entities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the more reason to preserve what is left, then.
It is said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.". I'd say this idea, that after you are guaranteed worse results, you should double down, is even more insane. If anything, what I wrote is all the more reason to find new strategies that don't involve "we'll fight them with guns". Besides who'll do the fighting? The kind of people that have guns…
I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law.
Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Any hint of stuff like you're talking about would lead to mass revolt within military ranks themselves. Militias would form, and armaments would be taken from the military's caches to launch a resistance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a great analogy and easy for the layman to understand.
I agree. BUT - the response will be: “well even if we wanted to, we don’t have the technology to read his brain. we DO have the technology to read his phone, but you nerds are keeping it from us.” (Disclaimer: I don’t agree with this position but I have a lot of friends who think the government can do no wrong)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America has vast and currently unimpeachable rights to weaponry. There is a huge swath of policy space between that and banning gun ownership. We can reduce gun ownership, trafficking and weapon deadliness a thousand different ways while not adversely impacting legitimate usage. Universal background checks, limiting purchase frequency, banning 100-round barrels, increasing liability for dealers.
The trouble with those policies (aside from 100-round barrels... I have no idea what that means, and I don’t think you do either) is that they’re often-mentioned, but people forget to ask the question, “Have these policies actually improved anything where they’ve been implemented?” Many of the recently-publicized shootings in the US have occurred in California, which has some of the most strict firearms laws in the n…
Many everything occurs in California. It has 12% of the US population. To be representative, one in eight US things should occur here.
>Why guns are the hot-button issue and heart disease isn’t plastered over the media 24/7?
If someone went out one saturday and gave 20 random people (or immigrants) a heart attack, it would be too. A huge amount of resources are already spent on things like preventing flu deaths. We just all agree it's the smart thing to do, for reasons you cited.
It's not evidence to not ignore gun violence, it's evidence to put as much effort into prevention as we do for e.g. flu and disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically mass incarnation?
No, there will be a one year grace period, during which there would be voluntary turn in of guns + mass confiscation. If they still wont comply after one year, mass incarceration is an option. Alternatively people could be executed on sight.
Surely this is in jest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if iCloud backups are enabled, Apple does then have the keys required to decrypt backed-up iMessage messages.
That seems to completely defeat the point of it being end to end encrypted in the first place.
Keychain, messages, and health data are all E2E encrypted and synced to iCloud.
By not doing iCloud backups, you're basically only giving up backups of app icon placement, home/lock screen background images, app data that isn't otherwise synced via iCloud or the app's dedicated sync service, and a handful of phone settings.
You can opt for the occasional iTunes backup to preserve those infrequently changing elements on the phone, and not have to compromise on recovery point for more important data like messages and security creds since all of that is synced in real time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Digital forensics is way outside typical leo training That's the problem: attempting to prevent important new technology (actually-secure encryption) from being used is not a substitute for updated training that provides "typical leo" with digital forensics skills that are increasingly needed. Susan Landau's 2016 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding Apple's encryption on the San Bernardino shoot…
While this is easy to agree to broadly, what exactly does she intend that these "technology-based 21st century capabilities" are? If she's talking about something like PRISM, are we going to be any happier with that solution?
I think, she was referring to classic investigative measures using modern tools and infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had an assault weapons ban before, related shootings declined, and millions of people did not become criminals overnight.
Which ban are you referring to? I've yet to see any evidence that any such ban has reduced violent crime in any way.
My current preference would be:
1. A weapons licensing program requiring training and passing a test both on general use and much more heavily on safety and responsibility/ethics. Biennial refresher course for license renewal.
2. A complete ban on gun ownership for any violent crime history or history of mental health issues, or known affiliation with a group classified as a terrorist group or criminal gang, or any other well known factors which significantly increase the risk of gun related murder, allowing unlicensed persons access to your firearms, including mandatory immediate surrender of arms and amo for anyone with a gun license if any of these points should become relevant after the fact.
3. Significant funding for means of identifying other factors that could help reduce gun deaths and implementing laws that integrate such factors once they have been demonstrated, as well as education to help the public at large identify the factors that are statistically relevant to gun deaths.
They also can’t access his brain. Neither of these situations are ones I feel compelled to fix.
The technology is a bit hush-hush, but it is already possible to read brainwaves, and "interrogate" someone through fMRI. Just thinking about your password may reveal it, if they are allowed to force your brain near a reader.
The first serious (public) ventures into this technology was around 2000. Advances in machine learning then made it possible to read objects and concepts that were not in a training set. It was used and tested extensively in Guantanamo Bay. The legal status is still ambiguous, but I guess that it is used just in very special cases (where the detainment itself may be legally ambiguous, such as at a black site).
The Legality of the Use of Psychiatric Neuroimaging in Intelligence Interrogation (2005) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/906b/8afdd39ecda3a265987a09... [pdf]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…
America has vast and currently unimpeachable rights to weaponry. There is a huge swath of policy space between that and banning gun ownership. We can reduce gun ownership, trafficking and weapon deadliness a thousand different ways while not adversely impacting legitimate usage. Universal background checks, limiting purchase frequency, banning 100-round barrels, increasing liability for dealers.
Not sure if you're joking there -- maybe you meant magazines?
Like so many other gun regulation ideas, it seems superficially reasonable based on "danger" but it's almost never the case that items like that contributed measurably to gun deaths. They don't need to be banned -- they are niche items. Mass shooters who have access to them rarely use them. They rarely use 40 or 50 round magazines. Indeed, people rarely purchase magazines larger than the standard 30 rounds.
We can reduce gun ownership...
That is not a legitimate policy goal. The earlier poster points out that gun ownership is not correlated with crime at all. We shouldn't set policy goals that are merely about partisanship -- trying to cut down on gun owners because we don't like them -- rather than a clear public benefit.
...increasing liability for dealers.
I would like to better understand what you have in mind here. In general, modern legal systems reject holding one person responsible for the crime of another. If a mass shooter lawfully purchases a firearm, what possible liability could a dealer have?