131–140 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a moral position, that's one branch of the conditional: > if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information He's not arguing that torture is wrong, he's arguing that torture doesn't work.
No he stated his moral position (that torture is wrong) first, and then at the end of his answer appended "and of course it is ineffective, but that is another story". Maybe listen/read to his full response first?
From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…
The article specifically states that he doesn't want a backdoor: “We’ve had very good open and productive conversations with the private sector over the last 18 months about this issue, because everybody realizes we care about the same things. We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufac…
You can't; this is an either or situation. There is literally no system that could be put in place that wouldn't be exploited by people who were not the intended users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> comes off more like an old guard republican rather then a democrat This is true of most Democrats these days, except when they want to pander to minorities or other disadvantaged groups who could use real, actual allies instead of the panderers. I am amazed and humbled by these folks' perseverance in the face of a two party system in which one party apparently hates them and the other thinks so little of them that…
Maybe many minorities and members of disadvantaged groups don't like being told that the pressing issues which affect their communities are just "identity politics," which seems to me to happen a lot lately.
You want to see the typical Democratic interaction with minorities on a political level? Look at Flint, during the Primaries and general election, and compare it to now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people die of auto erotic asphyxiation than terrorism annually (~682 people). You're insistence is what is rediculous, as parent pointed out if it was a problem--it isn't; then 0 cases have been publicly thwarted via this technique. I don't buy in that this problem is large enough not that this solution would be acceptable if it was
Arguing deaths due to happened more frequently than terrorism in some time period is useless, if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. There is no organized cult going around preaching auto erotic asphyxiation with explicit intention of causing large scale harm. On the other hand there are several organized terrorist groups which are intentionally trying to do that. Unchecked Terro…
So stop the underlying process? Terrorist organizations aren't quiet about their problems, that tragic day in September was in opposition to US interference in their lives. If our goal was combatting terrorism, we picked a terrible way of addressing the problem.
I still don't understand. They want to be able to have a court order a device maker to decrypt data, but today they can already get a court to order the device owner to decrypt it. The device owner actually has the password or key. The truth is that they want to do this without the device owner knowing it's being done.
The device owner might be dead. Given that the context is law enforcement, that's reasonably likely (I forget - wasn't that the problem with San Bernardino?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The compelling speech argument would not have held up in court. Apple was putting on a show because they had already advertised to customers that they wouldn't unlock phones for law enforcement.
What? Apple was not putting on a show. What the FBI requested required actual software development to be done. You can't force someone to work for you.
The idea that writing software not intended for public release is compelled speech under the standard of Wooley v. Maynard is laughable. Nobody except a few gullible tech bloggers (are there any other kind?) took that argument seriously.
“I don’t think Congress intended that distinction but what it does do us is in our most important investigations it requires us that if we want to find out the subscriber info to a particular email to go and get an order from a federal judge in Washington as part of the FISA court. An incredibly long and difficult process. And I’m worried about that slowing us down — and I’m also worried about it being a disincentive…
How "important" can the investigation possibly be if this serves as a "disincentive"?
From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…
The article specifically states that he doesn't want a backdoor: “We’ve had very good open and productive conversations with the private sector over the last 18 months about this issue, because everybody realizes we care about the same things. We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufac…
If you are curious about how you might incorporate what people say into your reasoning about reality and outcomes, this is a good book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/002...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's assuming voters are rational actors which is clearly not the case
Democracy couldn't exist if there was a mechanism to say certain votes are irrational and shouldn't be counted. It's not a perfect system but it's the best yet.