221–230 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you support this sort of system, you are saying that individuals should be able to place themselves above democracy. Like it or not, we have a legal system that entitles the government to execute lawfully obtained warrants. Tech companies seeking to make this harder are acting against democracy. It's time for Silicon Valley to decide what side it's on: Democracy, or the alternative.
Some people would say they are putting themselves above oligarchy.
If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes a photo tells you all you need to know about a person: e.g., http://i.imgur.com/4CIFpFe.jpg . Modern American law enforcement: a gang of wannabe tinpot dictators with weapons they have no business with, and that they probably have no idea how to use. Finger off the trigger, Sheriff.
Not only is his finger on the trigger but the weapon is cocked.
cue cries of "every gun is always loaded"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes a photo tells you all you need to know about a person: e.g., http://i.imgur.com/4CIFpFe.jpg . Modern American law enforcement: a gang of wannabe tinpot dictators with weapons they have no business with, and that they probably have no idea how to use. Finger off the trigger, Sheriff.
Not only is his finger on the trigger but the weapon is cocked.
His trigger discipline is still inexcusable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also buy a Toyota or a Honda car, since it's less likely to break down while fleeing the police. Clearly, reliable automobiles are part of a pro-crime agenda.
So is that why the federal government poured our money into GM and Chrysler? Oftentimes those with an anti-firearms agenda point out that Glocks are preferred among mass murderers. Glock is to guns as Toyota is to cars; reasonably priced and notoriously reliable.
The basic idea applies to any dual-use technology, of course: criminals will prefer the better items for the same reason law-abiding citizens prefer the better items. Thus, "criminals prefer X" is not, by itself, any reasonable argument against X in a dual-use technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people would say they are putting themselves above oligarchy.
But they're wrong. The United States is, whether you like it or not, a democracy. Voters can be influenced, but they still decide the outcome. Everything backends to them. If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.
People vote all the time in all kinds of undemocratic systems.
Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think anyone will argue with you on that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone's unclear about the violations, but when our system of government is limited to 2 parties, and BOTH of them are bought and sold to various companies and departments with interest in violating that premise, the ideal is doomed.
Is it really two parties? Are they really that different? What's the difference between ISIS and WMDs? Barack Obama and George W. Bush?