If true, what's the significance of that speculation that it was an Israeli contractor that built this? Who gets access to this hack?
There is no "significance".
U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
171–180 of 381 posts
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.
No, but I think Americans want a semblance of representation. When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig Every time there's an argument about wanting more democracy in the US, it seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants mob rule. But…
I'm curious about this capital-P People. Does working for a corporation revoke membership in this club?
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#173The case is droppable because it lacks public support. That was clear a month ago. It's an impossible scenario - requiring an engineering effort from a consumer focused company. If Apple wanted to comply, it would have been extraordinarily costly.
What's good about the case is that it brought forth a discussion about privacy. This case coupled with the Clinton email scandal should move a few ideas forward developing solutions that wouldn't otherwise have been profitable ventures. Where Lavabit had a very niche market a few years ago, companies thinking along those lines will have success moving forward.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#174While this case might have ended, but the battle isn't over yet. Via Matthew Keys on Twitter:
"There are 6 other cases where Apple is still fighting the DOJ re: unlocking phones"
https://twitter.com/matthewkeyslive/status/71458323211775590...
^ Link includes an image with 7 other cases where Apple has either objected to warrants, 2 that are still in process.
The most interesting one is the last, which involves an iPhone 6+ running iOS 9.1. It's not yet clear whether the zero day that allowed the government to access the San Bernardino phone also works on the iPhone 6, which has a secure enclave (unlike the San Bernardino phone). There are some other iPhone 6 and iPhone 5S devices in the list too running older versions of iOS.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#175I'm a little worried now about how long it will be before they come back and claim that there was some critical piece of evidence on the phone and start saying how evil Apple is for not wanting to cooperate because what are they, freedom haters?
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more…
Yes and nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels [0] You're cherry-picking topics you (presumably) agree on. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-be...
Is your point that people who believe in angels have no capability to govern themselves, so they should be grateful to their corporate overlords?
Or is your point that people who believe in angels need to be surveilled without warrants and have their meager earnings confiscated to enrich the elite?
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#177This doesn't really mean anything. The question is: Does Apple have the right to make an uncrackable phone? We have no resolution on that issue: Only the knowledge that the iPhone 5s is not such a phone.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the problems that many people have with what the federal government has done in the course of the 20th and 21st centuries is how they have completely ignored the 10th Amendment. I am not sure that the Constitution is an effective protection for civil liberties (or other rights), and I do not know what recourse the citizenry has when the government does ot abide by its own rules.
It's not that the federal government has ignored the 10th amendment, it's that it doesn't really mean anything. Here is the text: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So take something like the ACA individual mandate. Does that violate the 10th amendment? Well, it was held to not be a valid e…
The problem is that the Federal Government has effectively nullified the tenth amendment, because I can't think of anything reserved to the states anymore, except perhaps the police power, though I'm not sure the police power has any meaning left, as every specific action by Congress or the Executive seems to be justifiable. I have never Verrilli say that the government lacked any power it desired, though some of the members of the Supreme Court seem to think the Federal Government only gets those powers after a balancing test (which the Government wins if it is not being overtly capricious).
If you read the enumerated powers broadly enough, you are correct, but I find the 'generosity' of these interpretations to be quite disturbing. Commerce within the states is inter-state commerce, the Federal Government has a compelling governmental interest in your treatment of your neighbors, and whatever you produce or consume in your home affects the Federal Government's compelling interest in a regulatory scheme; everything not otherwise explicitly prohibited is fair game. Even the rights explicitly protected in the Constitution are subject to different levels of scrutiny, (i.e. rational, strict, etc. depending on how much the Judicial branch cares,) even when there was no provision for the Government ever violating them.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more…
The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#180I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…
> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more…
The system is designed specifically to thwart the majority sometimes. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Now, the thwarting doesn't always happen when the majority is wrong, but we might be grateful for the electoral college for instance, this time around.
The breadth and complexity of the issues the government has to deal with are far beyond what any one citizen could keep track of, that's why we don't have a direct democracy.