Earlier quoted context omitted.
Co-defendants or co-conspirators?
Is there any real reason to believe there were any?
His sister drove him there. For some reason she gets a pass.
FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
201–210 of 417 posts
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is that millions of Americans feel so strongly about gun ownership that they would rather be felons (and 'molon labe' their guns) than give them up.
Am I the only one who finds the use of "molon labe" farcical? I mean, the Persians did come and take them and killed the entire Spartan force in the process.
It was a successful delaying action. They were outnumbered hundreds to one and never expected to defeat the entire enemy army themselves. They knew they were going to lose that battle, but the intent was to help win the overall war, which the Greeks did.
And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got, which is a victory of sorts in its own right.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chinese and Russian governments already got access to every local device, even from Apple itself, We'll really need sources for claims like that...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/24/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-... * Nearly all iPhone users use iCloud. * If obeying 'local laws' is enough for Apple to allow external access to iCloud, the same logic must apply to the iPhone. * Note that Apple refused similar requests by American courts.
That's a logical deduction, which might be true! But it also might not.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#204> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…
This guy's (now deceased) sister drove him to the location. So she was in on it, too. (Why she's not included as a perpetrator in discussions about this event is odd.) I'm sure he left evidence that goes well beyond his own phone if he was planning and plotting with others. They should have no trouble piecing this together with or without his phone.
I think it is more appropriate to refer to them as his brother https://www.out.com/news/2019/8/08/dayton-shooters-slain-bro...
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relating the two is provocative. And it just caused me to wonder whether part of difficulty of advocating for privacy might now be that privacy rights advocacy will get blurred with gun rights advocacy, in the minds of people already people fatigued by, and skeptical of, the latter.
How’s this for provocative: if you don’t have a right to a 2nd Amendment, what right do you have to encrypt? After all, encryption has long been classified as munitions by the US government.
As munitions? Okay, the ban-gun argument would simple be "fine, have all the ammunition you want. Just no gubs." :)
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…
We had an assault weapons ban before, related shootings declined, and millions of people did not become criminals overnight.
The old "Assault Weapons Ban" grandfathered in existing guns. Since AR-15s and similar rifles are so much more common now its possible that re-instating the ban wouldn't help as much without also implementing a gun buyback. That could in turn be very expensive.
Not necessarily insurmountable, but potentially a significant obstacle.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#207Is the American government position “Guns don’t kill people, encryption kills people”, or am I just combining the personal opinions of a bunch of unrelated people who work for the government?
In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…
America has vast and currently unimpeachable rights to weaponry. There is a huge swath of policy space between that and banning gun ownership. We can reduce gun ownership, trafficking and weapon deadliness a thousand different ways while not adversely impacting legitimate usage. Universal background checks, limiting purchase frequency, banning 100-round barrels, increasing liability for dealers.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you assume a ban would take effect "suddenly"? As you rightly point out, it would make no sense to apply a gun ban instantly, tricking millions of Americans into technically becoming felons.
I think the point is that millions of Americans feel so strongly about gun ownership that they would rather be felons (and 'molon labe' their guns) than give them up.
We don't have to take anyone's guns. Even if we made some currently legal weapons illegal, just grandfather current ones and let attrition weed them out. I'll accept a solution that takes 30 years over nothing.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.
You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept wh…
Normal phone calls are logged by telephone companies, emails can be acquired from most providers, Google and other ad companies will have a pretty detailed history of general web use. In short, your phone does almost nothing without some server recording it.
> I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access.
You can't have both, if there is a backdoor, it is always there, and it will be used for lots of stuff.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…
We had an assault weapons ban before, related shootings declined, and millions of people did not become criminals overnight.
Which ban are you referring to? I've yet to see any evidence that any such ban has reduced violent crime in any way.