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

221–230 of 381 posts

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

#221

Post by pbreit »

chii wrote: post #11

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…

Compelling a plaintiff to continue a case sounds absurd. Is there precedent for such a thing?

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

#222

Post by fabulist »

free2rhyme214 wrote: post #148

The only thing this title tells me is that the iPhone 5C is not secure anymore. Thoughts?

One shouldn't expect much of anything to remain secure if an organization with the resources of the FBI has physical possession of it.

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

#223

Post by studentrob »

rayiner wrote: post #220
nkurz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 'rayiner' might just have meant "it would be preferable that the President be elected by popular vote of the entire nation without regard to state boundaries". While it's possible he was suggesting that the States themselves should be abolished, I think it's just awkward phrasing.

Nope, I think we should get rid of the states and turn them into administrative districts of the federal government. The state governments are hotbeds of corruption, ruled by minority interests because state elections have low voter turnout, and add an enormous administrative tax to pretty much every economic or legal transaction that happens in the U.S.

Respect for elaborating.

> The state governments are hotbeds of corruption, ruled by minority interests because state elections have low voter turnout, and add an enormous administrative tax to pretty much every economic or legal transaction that happens in the U.S.

Maybe that needs to happen once in awhile for us to wake up and start exercising our rights again.

I don't think the world has gotten any easier to administrate. If anything it's gotten tougher. I like the idea of allowing smaller areas to administrate themselves outside the national constitution. The world is changing more quickly every day, states have worked well for 240 years at preventing dissolution, and if we consolidate more power we risk creating a majority who is unhappy enough to revolt, in my opinion.

Our goal is not to become all powerful and ignore citizens who aren't making use of their right to vote. Our goal is to be balanced, and in doing so we find strength as a byproduct. When you seek power as a goal, you have already started down the path to failure when someone inevitably usurps your authority. Sustainability is our goal, and balance is the way.

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

#224

Post by jayess »

mchahn wrote: post #212
noelsusman wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 200…

> 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 people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

Aren't outlets of the free press primarily corporations?

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

#225

Post by dpark »

jMyles wrote: post #205
Thrymr wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

> 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."

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so forgive me. What exactly do you think unambiguously demonstrates that the United States is not a democracy?

> ...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)

I feel like the definition addressed this. (In fact, given that this is Webster's, I'd expect that the definition was written to specifically include the United States government.) The definition says "the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly". The fact that the Constitution reserves nonenumerated powers for "the states or the people" indicates a recognition that the power is vested in the people. The "legitimate purview", as you put it, consists of powers granted by the people who hold "supreme power".

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

#226

Post by EdHominem »

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…

> We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again

No. You can't roll back a human right. If you did it wouldn't be a valid law and people would be justified in armed resistance to it.

> We could abolish the EPA, or the IRS, or the NSA. We don't because these have enough supporters who value what they do, today.

Well, in the case of the NSA it's more because we suspect they'd commit treason and bring down the country if we tried.

(ie, pull out an old tape of Obama and frame him with something, etc.)

> 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.

Yes, things can always be screwed up. But it should be illegal for a government worker (ie FBI) to specifically try to undermine existing decisions by, for instance, lying in court, or paying for propaganda they know to be untrue. Both things we know they do.

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

#227

Post by bmelton »

mchahn wrote: post #212
noelsusman wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 200…

> 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 people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

The framers of the constitution never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence. Beyond that, considering that the vote was restricted to landed elites and mercantile class, there's more credence to the idea that the framers never meant for the government to stifle the speech of anyone (whether corporations or not) than there is to suggest they had any idea on corporate personhood.

Regardless, corporate personhood has existed since colonial times, and the framers didn't do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, the McCain-Feingold act that Citizens United overturned had only been on the books for 8 years before much of it was overturned.

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

#228

Post by sirclueless »

panarky wrote: post #200
enraged_camel wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Versus the stupid and the ignorant?

Yes! I'd prefer to be governed by ordinary people rather than an intelligent and wealthy adversary intentionally working against my interests.

The problem is that "governance by ordinary people" is not really on the table as an option. Governance by popular vote might be, but given how short-sighted and easily swayed the average loosely aware citizen is, the result is more likely to be "governance by demagogues and whoever has the most advertising dollars".

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

#229

Post by EdHominem »

noelsusman wrote: post #201
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…

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 200…

> 63% of Americans [...]

100% of Americans have been specifically lied to by the government about those issues.

The best thing about Snowden's leaks is how the release has continually shown the government to be lying, and lying in response to the last batch of lies.

As such, opinions based on those lies aren't really valid.

If they got to a voting booth and saw a General Alexander's taped confession for treason they'd (probably) rethink those opinions.

> Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance.

Again, only because the NSA has spent our tax dollars on specifically telling us things that they know to be untrue. These people don't support the NSA, they just don't want to die in terrorism and don't know enough to know how unlikely that is, or how useless the NSA is in that regard.

> You can go read the TPP for yourself.

Oh great, now that it's too late and it's technically impossible for it to change.

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

#230

Post by mikelward »

studentrob wrote: post #190
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…

> 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…

In Australia, which has IRV, it's not clear to me there's much difference. Candidates are still elected to single-member constituencies, and we still get a two-party system little different from the US.

Do you think IRV alone helps? What exactly do you propose?

Aside: in Australia, which has IRV, gay marriage is still not legal. Yay democracy. /s

Post reply on HN