Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 417 posts

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

#401

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

DuskStar wrote: post #329
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> If someone went out one saturday and gave 20 random people (or immigrants) a heart attack, it would be too. I'd love to see where people have proposed banning gas cans or truck rentals. (I wish I could also say 'knives', but Britain actually seems to be that retarded)

I can't tell whether you're being ironic or not. If you're suggesting hypocrisy for not proposing to ban those, consider their legitimate use. In restricting use of a potential weapon, you have to weigh the cost of the restriction. Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently.

---------

Or for the really facetious answer, here's a nice post detailing not quite the truck ban you asked about: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-need-a-license-to-drive

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

#402

Post by brokenmachine »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #280
tootie wrote: post #207

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.

...banning 100-round barrels... 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 mag…

>Indeed, people rarely purchase magazines larger than the standard 30 rounds.

30 rounds is standard? That's terrifying.

Anecdata but the NZ shooter had large clips (many dual large clips taped together in fact), and Las Vegas shooter had some crazy "niche" shit.

If it's so niche that nobody cares then what's the harm in restricting things like that? People don't need 40 round magazines to shoot targets.

They don't even need semi-auto to shoot targets, but that's crazy talk.

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

#403

Post by torified »

ehnto wrote: post #371
ineedasername wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but your low gun violence didn't just happen. People used to have guns, they liked their guns, but there were shootings. People including politicians realized they could do something about it. Some gun owners hated that, but shootings all but stopped. You're really the example that all "guns don't kill people" arguers hate having to try and explain away.

Of course, my point was just that it had nothing to do with encryption or the recent laws subverting encryption in Australia. It's worth noting, because you can be sure we will be used as an example to try and push these kinds of laws in other countries.

On the plus side, all the IT jobs we're losing here in Australia might come back when the US starts routing all their traffic through here so they can spy on US citizens!

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

#404

Post by brokenmachine »

fortran77 wrote: post #201
GordonS wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any real reason to believe there were any?

His sister drove him there. For some reason she gets a pass.

If you call getting shot and killed by the gunman "a pass".

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

#406

Post by selimthegrim »

euroclydon wrote: post #108
Causality1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't know what your position is because the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and right to arms are both specifically enumerated in the fourth and second amendments, respectively.

I believe he’s talking about “the right to privacy”

RBG and the privileges and immunities clause will win sooner or later with that attitude

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

#407

Post by djmips »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #280
tootie wrote: post #207

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.

...banning 100-round barrels... 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 mag…

You are being willfully ignorant of the obvious 'barrel' / 'drum' mistake.

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

#408

Post by auslander »

oneplane wrote: post #172
auslander wrote: post #93

I'm curious about Macs. If I have Firmware Password and FileVault enabled, is it same FBI-proof as iPhone? Does T1 and T2 chips or absent Tx chip (older Macs) make difference? Is storing FileVault unlock key in iCloud makes difference?

T1 no, T2 yes. Because T2+NAND as a combined setup does the same as the SE in iOS devices. Heck, it basically runs iOS.

> T1 no

No meaning not proof? Say I FileVault my drive and elect not to store my Recovery Key in iCloud, but write it down. Drive should be FBI safe. No?

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

#409

Post by DuskStar »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #401
DuskStar wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone went out one saturday and gave 20 random people (or immigrants) a heart attack, it would be too. I'd love to see where people have proposed banning gas cans or truck rentals. (I wish I could also say 'knives', but Britain actually seems to be that retarded)

I can't tell whether you're being ironic or not. If you're suggesting hypocrisy for not proposing to ban those, consider their legitimate use. In restricting use of a potential weapon, you have to weigh the cost of the restriction. Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently. --------- Or for the real…

> Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently.

Yep! You can ban truck rentals with little to no side effects, while banning gun ownership has a history of leading to genocide. Or is that not the comparison you'd make?

> Or for the really facetious answer, here's a nice post detailing not quite the truck ban you asked about

I'm not quite sure what comparison you're trying to make here. Yes, most vehicle rentals require you to show a driver's license, but that's a technical competency requirement, not a intentions requirement.

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

#410

Post by rdtsc »

Kye wrote: post #240
rdtsc wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is more appropriate to refer to them as his brother https://www.out.com/news/2019/8/08/dayton-shooters-slain-bro...

I see this a lot. People who are known to be trans in the wider LGBTQ+ community die, then their family deadnames them to the press, and people come out of the woodworks to defend the family and the press while ignoring the wishes of the person who died. Sometimes, like in this case, it's complicated because they're only out to a few people. I would still rather err on the side of what close friends say rather than f…

> I would still rather err on the side of what close friends say rather than family.

Yeah I was thinking of the same. If they came out to their friends, it's probably who they wanted to be and felt most comfortable sharing with. It was also how they would have liked to have been remembered.

Post reply on HN