Live data from Hacker News

FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

thehill.com

311–320 of 417 posts

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of the recently-publicized shootings in the US have occurred in California 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…

I think the point still stands: the three states with the most mass shootings are the three most populous, in order [0]. Texas and Florida have some of the loosest gun laws; California the strongest.

There's also the problem about gun violence vs. mass shootings, and how regularly the two are conflated. D.C has the highest percentage of gun violence deaths, but only one mass shooting [0] [1].

Of course, two-thirds of gun violence deaths are suicide [2] and about 80% of the one-third that are homicides are gang-related [3].

The war on drugs didn't work; we couldn't keep gangs from smuggling in drugs. What makes any one think we'll do any better with guns?

Next, arguments about high-capacity magazines. It takes three seconds to change an AK magazine [4]; you don't really need high-capacity. Yes, it takes some practice, but not a ton and many of these people start planning a month in advance (see El Paso guy's manifesto). Add to this that you can 3-d print your own [5], and likely manufacture one of reasonable quality. They're really not that complicated.

Finally, remember it really is the "tactical" or "scary" guns after which they go [6]. I'm convinced it's so they can win the white suburban mom demographic with pictures of black plastic pistol grips. Remember that most AR-15s are .223 cal. They would ban those, but let you keep your 30-aut-6. Lord knows how many M1s and Garands are out there, and I've never once heard them mentioned. At this point, I wonder if mass shooters go for an AR-15 because that's what all the others used and every one is just terrified of that one particular gun.

Now let's take President Trump's solution, "red flag" laws. Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent editorial against these in the WSJ [7]. Such laws are wrong for the same reason "stop-and-frisk" is wrong and for the same reason I object to today's airport "security"; Americans are not to be treated like common criminals without comitting a crime. And if you don't think it will have a disparate impact on blacks and browns, then I've got a bridge to sell you. This also sounds like another brick in the road to a technocratic dystopia, a la China's "social credit score".

As mentioned by others, the opioid crisis is a much bigger deal, as are suicides. This is terrorism, which is designed to cause maximum fear and discord with minimum action. We could be discussing how to allocate resources to the problems which kill the most, rather than being driven by rampant alarmism. I wish we didn't have a twenty-four-hour news cycle going on about it, or politicians trying to make it a number-one issue. Fly the flag at half-staff, say a prayer, do what we can for the families of the dead, and move on. Some time, the cost of the "solution" is greater than that of the problem. Tragedies happen; there is not always something politicians can do. Good policy rarely comes from a place of fear.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in...

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/7435796...

[2] https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

[4] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxWw1fYoGc

[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmi...

[6] https://www.propublica.org/article/why-do-democrats-keep-try...

[7] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-yellow-light-for-red-flag-law...

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal phone calls are logged by telephone companies, emails can be acquired from most providers, Google and other ad companies will have a pretty detailed history of general web use. In short, your phone does almost nothing without some server recording it. > I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. You can't have both, if there is a ba…

> You can't have [a backdoor] both [ways] Agreed. In another post I said the same thing. That's why I'm against backdoors. If the cops want to access someone's account just because, well they can make sweet luuurve to themselves with an pineapple. If that person has done murdered a handful of people I want the cops to get access, strictly permitted by a legal, independent entity that people can feel they can trust, a…

That is the definition of a backdoor, you can't have a piece of encryption that can only be broken if a court says so. You can have multiple keys, and give one to some entity of government, but there is no guarantee that they won't abuse it or leak it or lose it.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old "Assault Weapons Ban" grandfathered in existing guns. Since AR-15s and similar rifles are so much more common now its possible that re-instating the ban wouldn't help as much without also implementing a gun buyback. That could in turn be very expensive. Not necessarily insurmountable, but potentially a significant obstacle.

That just means it will take longer for the full effects to kick in. The gun lobby puts out tons of arguments that amount to "your proposed solution isn't perfect so it shouldn't be done."

The law would be reversed long before it had a chance of actually succeeded.

Lots of people care a whole lot about gun rights. And all you need to do is win 1 Congress and presidency, to temporarily reverse the law, and allow people to purchase these guns again, and reverse all the effects of the law.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#314
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It will be only slightly bloodier than current mass shootings, and not upon innocent (but on people breaking the law by having guns) at that!

So you'd kill millions?

We are literally talking about millions of people who would refuse to follow this law.

Seems like you are doing some sort of poes law parody of a gun grabber.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#315
50 years from now: AG Joe Bare said in a speech last month that FBI couldn't access recordings of the felons thoughts because the opted out from brain chip implant; he further said that the practice of letting some individuals hiding their thoughts from authorities has a high cost of mounting number of victims, some of whom are kids. He added that the 1st amendment gives far too much freedom and needs to be rethought in the changed society.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a successful delaying action. They were outnumbered hundreds to one and never expected to defeat the entire enemy army themselves. They knew they were going to lose that battle, but the intent was to help win the overall war, which the Greeks did. And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got, which is a vic…

> And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got Getting (benefitting) a lot more than you gave (spent) makes more sense to me.

In this context we're talking about death: giving more death to the enemy than they could give to you. Ultimately the meaning is the same as your rewording. Just a bit more grim.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but these days you can disable iCloud backups without giving up all that much. (it also re-keys Messages in iCloud when you turn off backups) 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 ded…

How much longer will iTunes be around?

The backup function is moving to Finder before iTunes disappears entirely.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#318
post #207

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.

> banning 100-round barrels

A ban on "large capacity" (greater than 10 rounds) magazines was implemented 25 years ago [0]. In actuality, it did very little except to drive demand (and increase prices) for such magazines.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#319
post #50
post #49

> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…

It isn’t just detective work, it is personnel with the skills to identify and pursue likely evidence. Digital forensics is way outside typical leo training and believe it or not you can make a lot more money in the private sector with IT training. Local, state and federal case loads get backlogged behind, leaving the highest priority cases to get staffed.

I wonder if this would be true if the War on Drugs did not exist. Or if the CIA hadn't played a large role in spreading crack cocaine throughout Los Angeles to fund a proxy war with Iran, leading to a massive criminal element and subsequent rapid militarization of police and refocusing of FBI, CIA and police resources towards non-violent, victimless crimes.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#320
post #207

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.

Why do you care so much about reducing gun ownership in the US, when the US gov ships thousands of containers with weapons to KSA that uses them in Yemen?
Post reply on HN