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

271–280 of 381 posts

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

#271

Post by studentrob »

mikelward wrote: post #230
studentrob wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> 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.

How long has Australia had IRV? I don't think it's a magic solution on its own. But I do think it allows voters to more clearly express their wishes without playing as many games wondering what the rest of the voter base will do. That's not democracy.

Anyway, IRV does not guarantee your favorite will win and it only gives different results in certain situations, such as close elections. Maybe Australia hasn't had the right circumstances come up yet. There are still a lot of barriers to becoming a presidential candidate, and many good people just don't want that job, like Biden. I'm sure that's true at other levels of government too. I know I would not like to be in a room arguing for gay marriage against some Christians. Or discussing budget for things I don't understand. Or any other number of boring things. And at the end of your term, if you aren't reelected, there's a good chance many people don't like you. Public office isn't glorious while you're there. It's only glorious after you're long dead, and even then you probably had to do something hugely important to be praised.

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

A good government is made up of active voters. I propose making good use of your voice through the internet, in person, and on the phone and in letters to your representatives. Inspire others to do so, keeping the focus on supporting issues you care about, and less so much about people or particular candidates. Share facts. Don't try to brainwash your fellow citizen by convincing them to vote in your man. Discuss and debate with mutual respect for everyone you meet, because we are all equals, you, me, the president, and those natives in Brazil who don't want to meet anyone from outside their jungle village. The more you can discuss without disrespecting someone's right to their own opinion, the more trustful and open our society will become, and we will advance to use technologies you can't imagine today. I know this because we're living in that future that people from the 1950s couldn't fathom. Use your vote and your voice, or risk losing it. It's your choice.

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

#273

Post by adventured »

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 intended for the United States to become a massive welfare state, either. There's absolutely nothing in there covering programs like universal healthcare, social security, food stamps, et al. The framers very blatantly would not have supported such vast tax based subsidization of entitlements in which one citizen is forced to pay for another. They also would never have supported the total government cost in the US being equal to nearly 40% of the economy. Does that mean the US should end those programs and slash the government down to a fraction of its current size?

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

#274

Post by chii »

roel_v wrote: post #261
imh wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a massive failing of our legal system when one party "refusing to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence" can lead to bad legal precedents. Money should be irrelevant to it, especially because most parties can't afford to spend that money. But back in reality, you're absolutely right :(

Please describe a plausible construct how your proposed concept could work.

have attorneys that are always state allocated to each side, not privately chosen.

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

#275

Post by gfunk911 »

eru wrote: post #260
winstonewert wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my problem with Approval Voting: Let's say you are left-wing, and there is a left-wing, centrist, and right-wing candidate running. Do you approve the centrist candidate? If you approve the centrist candidate, you may block the right-wing candidate, but you also may block the left-wing candidate. There is no clear and obvious way for the voter to translate their preference into an approval vote.

That's an interesting point. Yes, approval voting, like all other voting systems, requires voters to not only know their preferences, but also to play a little `game' (in the game theory sense of the word). The optimal strategy on who to vote for depends not only on preferences, but also on what you know about the other voters. Polls help here. The nice thing about approval voting is that, even though their might not…

I like the idea but don't agree that all you do is vote above the cutoff. If there are 10 choices and I approve of 3, but I know my 7 and 9 are the only possible winners, I'll likely vote 1 2 3 7.

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

#276

Post by arrrg »

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…

I really fail to see what that has to do with living in a democracy.

No matter which system of government, rules (in the broadest sense) can always change. Democracy is just the attempt to better align those rules with the interests of the people (in the broadest sense).

As long as the FBI keeps within the rules they can obviously try again. And that’s got very little to do with democracy and much more with the rule of law which is really central here.

Everyone – even and especially the government – has to adhere to the law, but there are mechanisms to act within the law or to settle questions or even to change the law, all through some sort of proper and defined process. That’s just what the rule of law is.

However, within the system of rule of law (and the particular implementation of that system in the US) there are certainly ways for questions to be more or less settled. Things that are easy to change (e.g. executive orders) and things that are hard to change (e.g. constitutional amendments). There are graduations to this – and graduations that exist on purpose.

Behind that is also the realization that quickly changing things – while sometimes necessary – is not really always desirable. So there is a certain sluggishness built right into the system on purpose. And achieving constitutional amendment levels of sluggishness is actually pretty hard to overcome in the US. It’s hard to get an amendment, it’s hard to remove it. Quite on purpose. It’s for settling questions for years.

(All of this is not to say that some states don’t try to have some core values enshrined for all eternity. The German constitution has such an article that explicitly forbids amendments of two other articles. No amendment can change that Germany is a democratic and social federal state, that there are elections and three branches of government, that there is rule of law, that every German has the right to resist against anyone attempting to remove that order, that human dignity is inviolable, that human rights are the basis of any human society and that the basic rights defined in the constitution bind as law all three branches of the government. Even if you agree that there is really no way to amend this in any way – something which constitutional scholars aren’t super-decided on – there could still be a revolution of some sort that just abolishes the old constitution … things can always change, also in technically illegal ways.)

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

#277

Post by clouddrover »

bmelton wrote: post #227
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cor…

> never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence

I don't think lobbying is a problem because the government has too much power, but rather because of the electoral system.

When voting is voluntary elections are won by the party that is best able to get out the vote. In order to get out the vote huge sums of money must be spent on political advertising and organization. When political parties are desperate for money it requires them to devote a lot of their time to fundraising and it makes them vulnerable to special interest groups with deep pockets (aka lobbyists). Voluntary voting means more opportunity for money to buy influence.

Compulsory voting, in contrast, means that almost all eligible voters will vote. Political parties can spend less money on advertising, less time fundraising, and more time developing policy and doing the job. Because the electors have to vote they're more likely to take an interest in the election, more likely to listen to the ideas being presented and vote accordingly. The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count, but that cost is worth paying.

Compulsory voting is a practical step towards getting the money out of politics and improving the quality of a democracy.

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

#278

Post by nobodyshere »

nodesocket wrote: post #164

The reality is that the FBI accessed it, so they no longer required Apple's help. "The Justice Department said Monday it has accessed data on the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino, California, attacks and no longer needs Apple's help in cracking it." Apparently a 3rd party from Israel ( http://www.cellebrite.com/ ) helped the FBI which begs the question, how did they do it? Do they have universal…

I think they (apple) might send a specially prepared iPhone undercover with some verbose logging enabled and ask to have it cracked by such a company, and try to locate the breach.

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

#279

Post by nobodyshere »

nodesocket wrote: post #164

The reality is that the FBI accessed it, so they no longer required Apple's help. "The Justice Department said Monday it has accessed data on the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino, California, attacks and no longer needs Apple's help in cracking it." Apparently a 3rd party from Israel ( http://www.cellebrite.com/ ) helped the FBI which begs the question, how did they do it? Do they have universal…

I think they (apple) might send a specially prepared iPhone undercover with some verbose logging enabled and ask to have it cracked by such a company, and try to locate the breach.

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

#280

Post by mtbcoder »

LordKano wrote: post #235
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United he…

> The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations.

A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.

Post reply on HN