I have been using [bitcoinrecovery @ consultant . com] for several years and I have always had great service recovering my money lost to cyber scam back. Please beware there are many fake shipping sites, forex, bitcoin mining and investment platforms out there swindling client out of money. I got scammed twice before I met Bitcoinrecovery AT consultant. COM a reputable genius hacking firm with over 1m reviews i saw online to call +one 516 341 1871 so i sent text requesting help to retrieve funds got away by scammers. All i did was provide them with details and wait 30 minutes i had all of my money back with bitcoins interests inclusive.
FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
411–417 of 417 posts
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#412I was really devastated because i lost lot of money to the scam, all thanks my cousin gave me + one FIVE OneSIX3FOUR11Eight7One cell phone number to contact B I T C O I N R E C O V E R Y |at|Consultant|dot|Com a certified expert recovery firm. I was lucky it turned out successful, well impressed with their competence and skilled services they work to time, recovered my money back in less than 7hours like magic. I wrote a mail leaving details of my transactions with wire transfer receipts to [Bitcoinrecovery @ consultant. Com] and of coursei paid for the services and i am sure the expert recovery firm would be more than willing to render some of their goodwill to help.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell whether you're being ironic or not. If you're suggesting hypocrisy for not proposing to ban those, consider their legitimate use. In restricting use of a potential weapon, you have to weigh the cost of the restriction. Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently. --------- Or for the real…
> Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently. Yep! You can ban truck rentals with little to no side effects, while banning gun ownership has a history of leading to genocide. Or is that not the comparison you'd make? > Or for the really facetious answer, here's a nice post detailing not quite the tru…
>banning gun ownership has a history of leading to genocide
Basically every other developed country has stricter laws than the US (which is what we're talking about, not full bans). It's ridiculous to suggest those lead to genocides.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if iCloud backups are enabled, Apple does then have the keys required to decrypt backed-up iMessage messages.
That seems to completely defeat the point of it being end to end encrypted in the first place.
That's the whole joke. Apple pushes E2E in advertising but fails to mention how by default it's all """backed up""" in their cloud where they hold the keys. It's ridiculous.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
This list gives me shivers...is the USA a scary, uncivilized country?
Yes, and it always has been. The murder rate per capita in the US has consistently been 5-10x higher than in Europe for the entire 20th century. Long before gun control, social safety nets, the drug war, or any other difference you might want to blame. The US is a low cohesion, high violence society.
[deleted]
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is politically more feasible to ban encryption in the US than it is to ban guns (or even significantly restrict them). Wait, I'm wrong. Even essentially insignificant changes to gun laws at the federal level are harder than banning crypto.
Can you please elaborate on why guns are so sacred in the US? Is it for cultural/historical reasons?
So the us doesn't end up like countries such as Romania, where the government can easily subdue its population with a simple good beating. It’s harder to subdue an armed population.
Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
...banning 100-round barrels... Not sure if you're joking there -- maybe you meant magazines? Like so many other gun regulation ideas, it seems superficially reasonable based on "danger" but it's almost never the case that items like that contributed measurably to gun deaths. They don't need to be banned -- they are niche items. Mass shooters who have access to them rarely use them. They rarely use 40 or 50 round mag…
>Indeed, people rarely purchase magazines larger than the standard 30 rounds. 30 rounds is standard? That's terrifying. Anecdata but the NZ shooter had large clips (many dual large clips taped together in fact), and Las Vegas shooter had some crazy "niche" shit. If it's so niche that nobody cares then what's the harm in restricting things like that? People don't need 40 round magazines to shoot targets. They don't ev…
It isn’t compatible with basic principles of liberal government to offer “What’s the harm?” as the basis for a restriction or policy. There needs to be a clear and just basis for government action, and a commitment to repealing or abolishing policies that do not prove to be worthwhile.
The same thing goes for asking “Why do you need that?” and if people don’t have a reason you like, taking that as a basis for restriction. In a free society, the people don’t need a reason — we can do what we like. It’s the government that needs a reason. We should be questioning proposed policies, with an eye to the public benefit, not because of any love of guns, but merely out of a basic requirement for government accountability.