U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by jemfinch » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 3:02 PM UTC

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.

Freedom of speech doesn't disappear as soon as people band together in an organization or corporation. The free speech of the corporation is simply the aggregate free speech of the shareholders in that corporation, and that's what Citizens United held.

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

#312

Post by LordKano » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 3:13 PM UTC

alanwatts wrote: post #293

LordKano wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons" They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.

People is a plural form of person.

Not in the context of the Constitution. "The people" makes reference to American Citizens. "Person" makes reference to legal persons.

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

#313

Post by HelloRipley » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

Your description sounds like Camus' interpretation of the myth of Sisyphus. I like it.

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

#314

Post by dean » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #290

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.

Let's make sure we know what we're talking about here. The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and aired that movie not long before the election. Is it your contention that we really should prevent this kind of thing from happening? Because to me, it seems like the very cornerstone of the democratic system. The minute such activity is illegal, the people…

I admit I haven't read the CU decision, but whatever else it is, it has apparently opened the door to no-limit campaign financing. Which is bad for democracy.

There are already laws protecting freedom of expression, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that CU is all about freedom of expression, and therefore good for democracy.

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

#315

Post by winstonewert » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

ClayShentrup wrote: post #306

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.

This isn't a problem. Numerous contentious Approval Voting elections and exit polls have been held with Approval Voting, showing voters can certainly cast a vote without being paralyzed by indecisiveness. If YOU can't make up your mind, then just don't vote. Seriously. You can get Approval Voting and just not even show up and vote. You'll still get massively better election outcomes because of all the people who do s…

I didn't intend to suggest someone wouldn't vote because they are "paralyzed by indecisiveness." My concern is that people will vote sub-optimally due to poor information about other voters preferences and poor understanding of the strategy involved.

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

#316

Post by EdHominem » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #141

KerryJones wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly -- because the US isn't a democracy (majority rule), it's a democratic republic.

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.

Yes, though you must consider that if your representative isn't bound to vote to represent you (even in general) the word is pretty watered down already.

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

#317

Post by EdHominem » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

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/…

> in which the supreme power is vested in the people

We don't have that. We get to pick from a closed set of possible representatives and they aren't bound to follow our desires. (Or even check...)

It's not the indirection of the representative, it's that they aren't required to even try to represent. Your vote in the USA essentially elects a mini-tyrant who theoretically wants to be elected again so much that they'll pander to you in exchange for that but only so far as they can use you. As soon as they'll get enough money by selling you out to compensate for your lost vote, they will.

And worse, this is how it's supposed to work.

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

#318

Post by EdHominem » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #266

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. If there has ever been a time to illustrate that our country is an oligarchy and not a Democracy, this has been the year. There is a non-zero chance that even in our rigged, broken system that the candidates that are recognized in one or both parties will be ones that received less voter support and were chosen by the wealthy. >We have to be prepared to fight the crypto wars for…

> informed consent

Our servants have been shown to be lying to us, and have continued lying to congress when called to task.

That's directly subverting our democracy. Treason.

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

#319

Post by PascalsMugger » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #303

girkyturkey wrote: post #300

Now does this mean that iPhones can be hacked? The government has said that in the vast majority of cases it will disclose security vulnerabilities, though in a small handful it doesn't. It would be good for everyone’s security if they disclosed, but they probably won’t

It means there is a known & exploitable flaw in one security option on one model of phone running one version of an operating system. Given that a government had to hire a computer forensics company to do it, I wouldn't call this a "hack" (a la the difference between a locksmith and a burglar). Apparently there is a law (enacted under the Obama) requiring the disclosure of the cracking technique, at least to the manu…

Does this disclosure requirement apply when the work is contracted to a third party? I have a hard time believing security companies would ever work for the government if doing so required them disclosing the vulnerabilities they use to the manufacturer. If the disclosure is not required of third parties then all such a policy does is incentivizes government agencies to ostensibly farm out such work to compliant security firms. This is how we end up with private firms as extensions of government a la Blackwater. Seems ill advised.

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

#320

Post by EdHominem » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #143

syshax wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. Actually, I think this is the genius of the amendment system. You are correct that it could happen. But unlike laws that can be passed or revoked by Congress by political whim, the barrier to creating or overturning Constitutional amendments is much higher and more difficult to pass.

Plus the point of our system is to allow both good and bad ideas to be discussed openly so everyone can decide their merits. We haven't seen the likes of Trump since Nixon, and he won't be the last, but we are stronger for giving him room to speak. The bad ideas will hang themselves, even if he becomes president . The US president is not all powerful. There are many limits in place.

I feel like we're more immunized against religious flavors of crazy. Like, Cruz is probably further from mentally balanced than Trump even, but if he became president he probably wouldn't cause the same level of trouble.

Trump's ideas are "new" in that he does say them first. They appeal to many because we all know the old ideas aren't great, from painful experience. Trump's brand of crazy hasn't hurt us in a long time so we don't see it.

As an example: Bush senior said he didn't even think atheists could be considered citizens. But there's 0% chance that he'd try to enact that, or that it'd pass. Trump's ideas have the veneer of "business decisions" and seem more likely to get enacted.