Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#201

Post by noelsusman »

panarky wrote: post #115
snowwrestler wrote: post #101

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…

> 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 American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway.

On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes.

Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible.

The 2000 election was a clusterfuck, but it has happened exactly once since 1888. Besides, if a few hundred votes go the other way in Florida then we wouldn't even be talking about it.

On bankers, 60% isn't overwhelming, and the government decided to go against the will of the people because they thought it was the best course of action. Most experts agree that it was the lesser of two evils.

You can go read the TPP for yourself. It's been out for three months. [1]

Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. [2]

None of this matters though because the will of the people is not supposed to be the final say in government action. There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy.

[1] https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

[2] http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#202

Post by Thrymr »

jMyles wrote: post #161
dpark wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.

It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."

You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

[0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#203

Post by imron »

fncypants wrote: post #121
imron wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what's a little perjury between government officials: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_a...

Lying to an indifferent, disagreeable, and dysfunctional legislature is one thing. Lying directly to a federal judge with contempt power is how one ends up in jail before packing up your suitcase and walking out the courtroom.

I wish it wasn't so easy for you to just pass off what James Clapper did as if it was something of little consequence.

It should have been something of consequence.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#204

Post by teacup50 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #182
teacup50 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment. Please stop parroting "200 year old law".

Oh, you mean in 1789, 227 years ago?

Yes. The same week that the fourth amendment -- which is what provides us with strong protection against unreasonable search and seizure -- was approved by Congress.

Or do you refer to that as a stale 200 year old law, too?

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#205

Post by jMyles »

Thrymr wrote: post #202
jMyles wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."

You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. [0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/…

Reducing the discussion to a dictionary definition is emblematic of many of the problems in today's political discourse. This pithy, literal definition of a term is not relevant, especially when that same term, in the same context, is discussed at length, in light of various philosophies on the matter, in the Federalist Papers.

I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the united States of America is a democracy than the position papers written to advance the four corners of its founding instruments, and they deliver an unambiguous "no."

Let's say, for a a moment, that your definition, which seems to conflate these two distinguishable scenarios (one in which a government's power is strictly limited and enumerated, and another in which that power extends to the bounds of whatever a voting majority or their representatives might desire), is a reasonable one.

How, then, do you discuss this distinction?

...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly). It has dominion only over the specific areas outlined in the constitution; those not mentioned are reserved for the states or the people.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#206

Post by terminado »

stephensurh wrote: post #177

This 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.

Hmmm, well, what metaphysical Right does the action of creating such a phone fall under, philosophically speaking?

Which broader Right is this specific activity a representation of?

What does the act of fabricating a secret keeper mean, and does a company gain rights, or are the rights of some set of individuals collectively conferred upon the company by default?

Would making a different object, such as a gun, alter said rights? Pretty sure the constitution says Apple can proceed without interference, but these are questions worth contemplating.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#207

Post by woodman »

cookiecaper wrote: post #66
lallysingh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PGP worked well enough for Snowden, right?

Snowden had the element of surprise. They weren't actively trying to monitor his comms because they didn't know he was a risk until after the leaks. If the state wants to decrypt your messages badly enough, they have resources that they can devote to that (as well as multiple side channels that are probably easier than forcibly decrypting, including the infamous "beat with a wrench" trick). It's not trivial to defeat…

> It's not trivial to defeat strong encryption, but it is doable given sufficient interest.

That is as wrong as saying that, given enough effort, you can make 1 + 1 = 3. Cryptography deals with unimaginably large numbers, to the point that for some algorithms and keylengths an exhaustive bruteforce attack would require more energy than exists in the universe.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#208

Post by nkurz »

pavornyoh wrote: post #18

Can Apple counter sue for them to reveal how they accessed the phone? Surely, there must be a loophole in there somehow...

The EFF's Andrew Crocker suggests that the "Vulnerabilities Equities Process" (the result of a previous EFF lawsuit) might legally require them to reveal how it was done: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-...

Regardless of the legal requirement, others (and likely Crocker) don't think that this is that likely to happen, though.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#209

Post by rayiner »

fsck--off wrote: post #196
rayiner wrote: post #163

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…

Why is the 2000 election a disingenuous example? Bush lost the overall popular vote and it is almost certain that a majority of people tried to vote for Gore in Florida.

We also don't elect presidents based on who people "tried to vote for." Bush won the first count, and he won the automated recount. It should never have progressed further than that. 7 of 9 justices agreed that the ad-hoc recount that applied different standards to different counties violated the equal protection clause.

Moreover, we have no way of knowing whether Bush or Gore "won" Florida. Voting is a mechanism for measuring something. Like any method of measurement, it has a margin of error. The margin between Bush and Gore was so close that it was almost certainly smaller than the error in the voting mechanism itself. The scientifically right answer would have been to exclude Florida (and, in fact, several other states decided by very small margins) from the sampling process.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#210

Post by u801e »

rayiner wrote: post #163
panarky wrote: post #115

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…

> First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public.

It seems to me that minority interests have a disproportional influence on policy decisions and that a single issue may not have a high enough priority to get elected representatives to change policy on that issue.

For example, if you look at the the NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) that was in effect from 1974 through 1995, it was quite obvious, based on traffic speed measurements, that almost no one was complying with the law on interstate highways, yet it took 13 years before it was modified to allow for 65 mph speed limits and another 8 years before it was repealed entirely.

So, it's entirely possible that the electorate was not in favor of that particular law long before 1995, but that single issue wasn't important enough for congress to vote on for around a decade.

Post reply on HN