91–100 of 261 posts
In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent set for reporters, but not for computer programmers.
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
Also that this is an order under the All Writs Act and not a search warrant. If I had a nickel for every time this is described in the press as Apple resisting a "warrant" or a "subpoena" I'd be able to make a seven figure donation to the EFF!
A good detailed discussion on that subject is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvh0YwpnPQo
There is more than one scene where Nixon talks about how he wants to get rid of J. Edgar Hoover but can't. In another the Attorney General calls FBI agents "the Gestapo".
It reminded me of another tape - a phone conversation LBJ recorded of him talking to another Attorney General - Robert Kennedy. Kennedy talks about how his subordinate, Hoover, was not only not taking orders from him, but was having agents monitoring, writing reports and spreading disinformation about him ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M ).
Forget the FBI monitoring non-violent political figures like Martin Luther King Jr., or Vietnam peace groups - presidents and their attorney generals began to fear their power.
The Church committee was supposed to fix this, but it was stonewalled in many ways, and by the 1980s we saw the FBI revive these political witchhunts again against groups like CISPES, and even groups run by Catholic nuns concerned about the rapes and killings of Catholic nuns in Central America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see anything wrong with 'Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI' It is what it is. You guys focuses more on how to limit FBI to abuse the terrorist card to violate privacy. But in case of a true terrorist, the answer should not be not that hard.
This is exactly what the FBI want's you to think and why they've carefully handpicked this case to try and set this legal precedent on - ridding us of our fundamental rights to privacy and security. Out of all the 13 pending cases the FBI have with Apple using the All Writs Act (they've also said they have another 175 iPhones to unlock), this has the least chance of holding anything meaningful given it's his consent-…
Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.
Nevermind the fact that the point the safe company success relied on trust that you cannot break into their safes in any way.
This just makes the Gates story even stranger. Did the FT misquote him because they're incompetent, or do they have an ulterior motive at play?
Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told Bloomberg Television he was “disappointed” by reports that he supports the U.S. government in this dispute, saying it doesn’t accurately reflect his opinion.
“That doesn’t state my view on this,” he said in an interview on “Bloomberg Go.” “The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don’t support that.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like he said, for the clicks. It makes it seem like a more important case. It's also more descriptive for people who may be hearing about the story for the first time. Personally, I call it the San Bernardino iPhone case.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." - Lenin Can't say I agree with him on much, but he had a point with that quote.
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
Much to the FBI's chagrin, the Whitehouse agrees with Apple, which is a great sign that someone in this country is sane: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-see...
I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too. Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue. Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in communication and agreement about this i…
You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us. It's easy to see how, if you trust the US judicial system, you'd be okay with this. If you think warrants are only given in valid and justified situations, this wouldn't bother you, because this'd only be used for "good".
We know better, but that's probably not the position the head of one of the branches of government (and a scholar of the highest law of the judicial branch, even) finds himself in. Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system.
From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…