The Chicago Chief of Police genuinely said this: >"Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile. The average pedophile at this point is probably thinking, I’ve got to get an Apple phone."
These PC/Mac attack ads have gone too far!
U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
201–210 of 350 posts
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's very very bad about this, in addition to the direct effects on people's privacy, is that it creates a class system of people who are allowed access to strong encryption while the cattle being farmed on this plantation are not. What do you mean?
This restricts access to strong encryption by a broad range of ordinary people. It's discriminatory. It creates a class system. Shepherds and mutton-eaters vs. the sheep. "Privacy for the rich/powerful/savvy, but not for you."
Yes, I understood that. What I didn't understand is what you meant by "this". Do you mean, the move by Apple and Google? Or the FBI? And in any case, how so?
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be as naive as hell here, but when you go from, "we don't want US citizens selling crypto devices to terrorists" to "Timmy's going to see the inside of a jail cell for 20 years for giving Mark a copy of TailsOS" I just can't see how a judge or jury would let it go that far, and I don't think unintended consequences have ever gotten that bad. It just smacks of fear-mongering. "They'll literally lock up your chil…
Yep, sorry, you're naive. :) The law != common sense. If a law is on the books, it may be applied broadly, even to Timmy and Mark. That's why it's important to ensure the laws are sensible before they're enacted. Here's one example. Let's say there's a 16-year old girl and a 17-year old boy who are in a consensual dating relationship and, you know, take some racy photos of one other. The photos were taken consensuall…
Right. We go from a nation of laws, to a nation of people that can break the law .. if you're well-connected. Which has a strong resemblance to the situation commonly found in what was formerly called banana republics.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just smacks of fear-mongering. "They'll literally lock up your children!" Prosecutors had every intention of sending Aaron Swartz to prison. We don't need more stupid laws, we need to remove the existing ones.
Aaron Swartz was never convicted. Being charged with a crime and being convicted of a crime are two entirely different things.
Being charged with a crime and being found not guilty can still bankrupt you and consume years of your life. You can't be charged with a crime that isn't on the books.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#205What a terrible article. Excerpt: They have created a system that is a free-for-all for criminals So we should give up all rights to privacy to help catch criminals? What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law Maybe that says more about your laws than the desire for privacy?
What's next?! Requiring warrants to search criminals' homes? Giving criminals jury trials? Banning cruel and unusual punishment of criminals?
Criminals shouldn't be able to use our freedoms against us. Accused criminals use our system of justice and freedom as shield that only weakens America further.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're implying that Apple doesn't own the content people store on their devices? I thought the entire point of their walled garden OS was that they did, and were quite willing to add, delete or modify it as they please. Going to the actual owners of the content makes perfect sense.
What? Of course Apple doesn't own the content on my iPhone. Why would you think they did? I paid for the thing. It is now mine.
I'm pretty sure millions of people didn't decide for themselves to put a U2 album in their playlist. Apple made that decision for them.
It's pretty clear that unless it's entirely your decision what goes on that device, what goes off and who has access to it, you didn't pay to own it, you paid for the right to access their content on their device under their terms. It doesn't matter if you paid money for it - they own it in every way that's relevant.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aaron Swartz was never convicted. Being charged with a crime and being convicted of a crime are two entirely different things.
Being charged with a crime and being found not guilty can still bankrupt you and consume years of your life. You can't be charged with a crime that isn't on the books.
You also can't stop criminals with a crime that isn't on the books.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, sorry, you're naive. :) The law != common sense. If a law is on the books, it may be applied broadly, even to Timmy and Mark. That's why it's important to ensure the laws are sensible before they're enacted. Here's one example. Let's say there's a 16-year old girl and a 17-year old boy who are in a consensual dating relationship and, you know, take some racy photos of one other. The photos were taken consensuall…
Let's not overlook the fact that the law doesn't actually have to be applied, it can be a bargaining chip. The prosecution mentality is to 'throw the book' at defendants and then the defendant has to try to negotiate down from that starting point. Firearms might be a good analogy here. You don't need to actually shoot a robber for your firearm to be effective. The mere presence of it is often enough to scare them off…
And how is this "everyone can be in prison if we want it" attitude any good? That's a huge enabler of selective enforcement and limitless corruption.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#209"Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action. " Wait, what? Even with the privacy Apple and Google are offering there are huge amounts of ways to access data useful to law enforcement and the law enforcement seems to have the tools to force the companies to give it.
It shouldn't be legal for the government to request companies to do things that aren't codified in laws. No "asking" or "buying". We decide what and how the government functions. If the gov wants to do things differently, it can ask congress. Not apple or google.
Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything I'm more prone to believe this is disinformation meant to allay our fears and draw us into a false sense of security when using our smartphones. xnull's comment nailed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390150
Is there any evidence that smartphone purchasing or use has dropped significantly as a symptom of widespread fear of government spying and overreach? From what I can tell, the only thing most Americans are concerned about at the moment is whether the iPhone will bend if you keep it in your pocket for too long. Disinformation is a plausible strategy, but most Americans simply do not, and have never, cared (and a signi…
The average consumer isn't who they are trying to convince, it's the security conscious who take measures to protect their privacy. They are the people who need to be tricked into thinking the iphone's passkey is bulletproof.