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

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

#331

Post by musiciangames » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

clouddrover wrote: post #277

bmelton wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 organiz…

> The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count

Australia has compulsory voting. It also has the donkey vote, estimated at 2% of votes. That is a downside.

http://australianpolitics.com/voting/electoral-system/donkey...

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

#332

Post by alanwatts » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

zymhan wrote: post #305

alanwatts wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. Do you know why they didn't? Because it wasn't feasible to do so when information was traveling at the speed of the horse drawn carriage. >In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But…

There's also a philosophical reason for the adoption of an indirect, representative democracy. One specific example is to protect against Tyranny of the Majority [1]. I'm dubious that a country where most issues are voted on directly by the people could function with any significant amount of participation, mostly because people are not experts in most fields, and don't necessarily understand e.g. the macroeconomic e…

The context of your Federalist Papers quote is in regards to separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial) and not indirect vs. direct democracy.

Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are just pejorative synonyms for democracy. Which would you rather have, tyranny by the majority or tyranny by a minority (i.e. monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship)? Personally I'd argue for something else altogether.

At one end of the debate was the likes of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who argued for the "tyranny of the majority" (democracy) and at the other was the likes of Alexander Hamilton, who wanted Oligarchy:

>I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of the many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object public strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.

-Alexander Hamilton, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention, v. 1, p. 299.1787-06-19

It would indeed be nice to delegate to the experts (i.e. scientists, engineers, psychologists etc.) on relevant issues, rather than having climate change deniers[1] on the Environmental Committee and people who have never sent an email[2] in their life on the Committee for Privacy and Technology.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

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

#333

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #312

alanwatts wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

[deleted]

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

#334

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

dean wrote: post #314

CWuestefeld wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're interested and opinionated, you should read the decision. It's mostly in plain English and the reasoning can be understood by someone who is not a lawyer. It's not long and can be found with Google, probably as a PDF from the Supreme Court site.

It doesn't really open the door to no-limit campaign financing. It says that the government can't put a limit on how much money a person or group of people (like the "Citizens United" nonprofit--hence the name) can spend to promote their OWN opinions.

There is a difference between 1) giving a political candidate $1 million, and 2) spending $1 million to shoot, print, and promote a documentary movie about a political candidate.

#1 is still illegal. And it's hard to imagine a way to limit #2 without giving someone the power to determine which movie (or website, or podcast) is "legal" and which is "illegal" speech about a candidate.

If we can't speak freely each other about candidates, how can we hope to have a valid political process at all?

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

#335

Post by alanwatts » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #312

alanwatts wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The first and original definition of "person" is "a human being".

An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation."

Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction.

A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on.

A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it.

So, in reality using law to define a corporation as a person you have a piece of paper saying a piece of paper is a human being.

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

#336

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #223

rayiner wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 admin…

Technically, the states have only prevented dissolution for a bit less than 151 years. The previous streak lasted about 79 years.

Surely, the Confederate secession qualifies as a dissolution.

I am of the opinion that the U.S. would fare better with more states, rather than fewer. If Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Diego all became city-states, the usual civic corruption would have less impact on the statewide governments of the donor states.

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

#337

Post by pcvarmint » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #273

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 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…

Yes.

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

#338

Post by LordKano » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 8:21 PM UTC

alanwatts wrote: post #335

LordKano wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first and original definition of "person" is "a human being". An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation." Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction. A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on. A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it. So, in reality using law to define…

Legal and common definitions are often at odds.

Legally, marijuana and cocaine are "narcotics" but pharmacologically they are not.

The law defines personhood for biological entities too.

One minute before birth, it's not a legal person. One second after birth, it is a legal person.

This is nothing new.

If you don't like the law, convince enough people that the law should be changed.

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

#339

Post by ClayShentrup » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #322

adrianratnapala wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How long has Australia had IRV? As long as I have been around -- 30 years or more. IRV has nothing to do with reducing the strength of two main parties. It just reduces the weirdness in the case of moderately close races.

Okay, so there can still be two main parties, but isn't the idea to allow third party candidates to run without taking votes away from the most similar candidate? I haven't studied all the different forms of voting [1]. I know there isn't one that's perfect, I just think we can make some improvements on what we have now. I am not ashamed to admit most of my understanding of this comes from CP Grey's animal kingdom =)…

Talking about criteria with voting methods is like comparing weight and horsepower of race cars. That's the wrong approach. You want to put them on the track and get average race times. You can do this with voting methods too.

http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html http://ScoreVoting.net/PropDiatribe.html

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

#340

Post by ClayShentrup » Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 8:35 PM UTC

winstonewert wrote: post #324

eru wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You can game any voting system by voting strategically, but approval voting seems unique in actually expecting people to have to vote strategically.

You can vote strategically in any deterministic voting method. There's nothing special about Approval Voting. People can vote honestly based on whether they approve (have a favorable opinion of) a candidate. Or they can be tactical and base the decision on probability of winning.