131–140 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social engineering could plausibly work against Apple employees.
Which is undoubtedly one of the many reasons why didn't want to create the software necessary to unlock the phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That won't happen unless American voters want it. They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it.
This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...
> Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it?
> a pithy but pointless HN comment
> might expand your thinking on this topic
Just throwing it out there: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head:
> They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it
Was there a vote on it? When exactly?
Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it.
Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not entirely sure how you can call 14 deaths "non-existent".
14 deaths out of 300 million people is close enough to zero that it's not worth thinking about.
You appear to be saying that 14 murders is something that shouldn't be investigated properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, heads of US security apparatuses haven't seemed to be capable of anything beyond immediate contradiction lately
To me they seem to be a step behind. Maybe they're just too old.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by all accounts, received nothing of value for the money How can you know that?
>>How can you know that? We can't. That's the problem! The government just spend a million fucking dollars to access a phone's contents, and we have no idea if it was worth it. This lack of accountability is what's causing them to flaunt civil liberties so brazenly and shamelessly. If cornered, they always use the "it's a matter of national security!" excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Specifically, I live in the UK and one of the complaints law enforcement has is that US companies can (and do) totally ignore valid court orders because they don't apply in the US (reddit being an arbitrary concrete example). A US company (or individual) should absolutely ignore court orders from a non-US court; such courts have no jurisdiction. A "valid" court order necessarily must come from a court with jurisdic…
The thing is, companies like Google, Facebook and Apple are kinda companies of great britain or at least Ireland. They have bases in Ireland for tax purposes and to comply with certain data retention laws. That aside, it is not really too much to ask that a company that does business in England abide by English law.
But "does business in England" and "has a legal nexus in England" are two different things, depending on your definition of "does business". For instance, if I sell a service online, and someone from England buys it, that might count as "does business in England" but it doesn't make either me or the service subject to English law or jurisdiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> was not “scalable.” This is the same James Comey that said they just were just asking Apple for access to just that one phone.
Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of we could count on congress to provide adequate oversight.