191–200 of 381 posts
I'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…
I feel like cases shouldn't be droppable unless both parties mutually agree, and the courts also must first agree.the courts should not agree if it's a case that could set a precedent that can have far reaching implications. What if next time, a smaller player than Apple was caught in this sort of case, and they can't fight back as easily? Then it'd be easier to setup a precedent favourable to one party. This seems l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your examples are all pretty disingenuous. > A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only min…
> Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. I was with you until this part. States gave us a path to gay marriage, and allow people to move to different areas that hold different values than the whole nation. I'd suggest trying instant runoff voting before moving to something as drastic as abolishing states. I think IRV would allow people to express their votes and opi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.
That's actually a good point, setting precedent by one side not being represented properly. Thinking further, one company could easily setup another and sue it for one thing or another. The set-up company presents a believable but purposefully flawed case and voilà: legal precedent.
Earlier 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…
Your examples are all pretty disingenuous. > A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only min…
Earlier 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 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 d…
s/sometimes/most of the time
Woah, wait a minute. By purposely bypassing security restrictions present on the device via some sort of exploit isn't the FBI violating the iPhone terms of use? Could Apple theoretically sue them for doing this (and most importantly, for not sharing _how_ they did this)?
But I suspect if Apple attempted this, the FBI would just say they're not allowed to sue.
I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…
And? What makes you think most consumers will care that the government cracked an iPhone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly not! It's much better to be ruled by sociopaths and megalomaniacs.
Versus the stupid and the ignorant?