Bill G - Good Little Statist
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
... gave and interview: tech companies should be FORCED to give the GOV what it wants in the Apple Case, says the FBI ONLY wants this ONE Thing
but then this is the guy who's foundation donates money to abort Africans
Got to ask why you think this
has anything to do with this
it's like you just string random thoughts together and expect it to make sense.
Tilted
..
... gave and interview: tech companies should be FORCED to give the GOV what it wants in the Apple Case, says the FBI ONLY wants this ONE Thing
but then this is the guy who's foundation donates money to abort Africans
Mr. Gates is the fist prominent person, who I am sure understands what's actually being demanded here (i.e. who understands the technical aspects of the situation) and who is not effectively speaking on behalf of the government, who has taken that side of the debate. I'm not sure whether he's thought through the legal aspects of the situation though, that adds a whole other layer (perhaps the most important layer) to the consideration.
Everyone else that has spoken on the matter (or whom I have spoken to myself) who I'm sure understands the situation (on the technical side) has taken the position that Apple should not agree to do this or that they shouldn't be forced to. I spoke to two different people this weekend that asked me what I thought, beginning with the basic rhetorical position - why shouldn't Apple agree to do this? Once I explained to them what was really being demanded, that it wasn't just unlocking the phone for the FBI or turning over information (that was on the phone) that is in Apple's position, they understood the problems with the demands and agreed that Apple should not comply unless they absolutely have to.
The problem is, the majority of people are likely to fall on the other side - having been mislead about the situation, or working with an overly-simplified conception of it. It doesn't help that someone like Mr. Trump would, not even knowing what's going on (e.g. what's being asked), make the comments that he did. It's one thing to take the position that Apple should do what is being demanded of it (based on actually knowing what is being demanded of it), it's another to take such a strong position (and encourage others to take that same position) when you clearly don't know what it is that you are taking a position on - you greatly misunderstand what it is that's at issue.
It's as though he happens to hear a few words on TV or the radio, realizes that something or other is going on, and feels compelled to comment on it with great conviction (read: sees another opportunity to make rhetorical hey) - whether or not he has a clue about that which he is commenting on. So he just fills in the gaps in his knowledge with misinformation, and declares what's right and what's wrong. Oh, I heard the words bears and guns used in the same segment of a TV program last night. I guess I need to take a position on whatever they were talking about. So... We have got to stop these bears from shooting up our zoos, our zoos should be safe from this kind of bear aggression. We need some common sense here folks. Common Sense. We can't let bears run around shooting at children.
Anyway, I reiterate that I fear the government will win this fight for public support. On the one side you have many prominent tech voices (as well as others, e.g. those concerned with individual liberties in general) speaking out about the threat these demands pose (and, to that end, needing people to think carefully about the situation and its implications going forward); and on the other side you have the government, with the help of people like Mr. Trump, taking advantage of people not really being clear on what's being demanded (or motivated to think through the implications of it). The latter probably wins in the court of public opinion because it is tapping into the stronger force.
I wish people would take greater notice of this situation. Then I wish they would take the time to understand the issues (both technical and legal, especially the latter - e.g., the government being allowed to use the All Writs Act in this way) and think through what might happen (regarding some things, what would almost surely happen) if we lose this fight. A year from now it will be too late to win this fight, and it may even be several years before the potentially grave consequences of losing this fight start to become apparent to the casual observer. In other words, by the time we realize what we've done - what we've allowed - it will have long since been too late (including, because this affects what other governments will be emboldened to demand). I fear we know not what we are sowing, yet we're going to sow it anyway. And by the time the reaping is far enough along for most to realize what had been sown, it will have spread too far to ever be eradicated.
This fight matters. A lot. I think it's more important than this year's presidential election. I think I'd take the trade-off of a President Sanders or a President Clinton in exchange for winning this fight decisively. I'd take Governor O'Malley back to replace Governor Hogan. I'd take a whole lot of things I don't want in order to get what I'm convinced we need on this front. In my opinion this is easily the most important public policy issue we've faced in the last 5 years. It may be the most important one we've faced in my lifetime. I haven't thought that last bit through enough to say that it is, but it's surely one of a handful in the running.
glhs837
Power with Control
I agree, this battle will be won in the court of public. And I think you are right about them winning. Just this AM, I was given a sound bite explaining that at least some the San Bernardino families are filing a brief to support the govts position. "The families deserves answer".
Tilted
..
I saw a report that some of them were supporting the government on this issue. I also saw a report that one of the mothers is supporting Apple and, well, us.
Good for Bill Gates. 
One of Rush's other topics yesterday, besides fragile little college pukes, was this situation. Some guy called in and pretty much said what I've said before on here: what the hell are you keeping on your phone that the government would care about, #1, and could get you arrested, #2?
Rush lost his chit. Said that you don't need to have anything on your phone, the feds will plant it there to frame you; there are so many laws that you're probably breaking one right now without even realizing it; blah blah blah.
That's ridiculous. The FBI doesn't have the manpower to run around snooping on everyone's phone and making up crap to incriminate random innocent citizens. Anyone who thinks they do is a crackpot. You'd have to come up on their radar for some reason - being involved in a terrorist attack, for example. You, random boring citizen, are not as important as you think you are and are perhaps getting too mental with the TV and movies you watch. The FBI doesn't give a damn about you and your dick pics.
I absolutely think Apple is being unreasonable, especially in this case, and I hope their stock tanks and they all go broke. I loathe Apple in the first place - bunch of control freak hippie Leftist hypocrites - and this just cements my opinion.
One of Rush's other topics yesterday, besides fragile little college pukes, was this situation. Some guy called in and pretty much said what I've said before on here: what the hell are you keeping on your phone that the government would care about, #1, and could get you arrested, #2?
Rush lost his chit. Said that you don't need to have anything on your phone, the feds will plant it there to frame you; there are so many laws that you're probably breaking one right now without even realizing it; blah blah blah.
That's ridiculous. The FBI doesn't have the manpower to run around snooping on everyone's phone and making up crap to incriminate random innocent citizens. Anyone who thinks they do is a crackpot. You'd have to come up on their radar for some reason - being involved in a terrorist attack, for example. You, random boring citizen, are not as important as you think you are and are perhaps getting too mental with the TV and movies you watch. The FBI doesn't give a damn about you and your dick pics.
I absolutely think Apple is being unreasonable, especially in this case, and I hope their stock tanks and they all go broke. I loathe Apple in the first place - bunch of control freak hippie Leftist hypocrites - and this just cements my opinion.
and, well, us.
You, not me. I have not seen an argument against it yet that wasn't some paranoid Ludlum novel stream of consciousness.
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
I've been thinking about this issue (gov forcing apple to comply), and admittedly haven't had time to read ALL the info/details about it, so I have been back and forth on it without committing to a solid position just yet, and that's just because I'm trying to be fair, impartial, and view both sides of the argument without emotion, which is difficult to do because my first inclination is - do WHATEVER it takes to keep our nation safe, PERIOD, NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
And I wouldn't waver from that stance one iota ... except that (and here's where politics comes into play for me) I do NOT trust this administration with one one-thousandths of a millimeter of leeway when it comes to things like this. They've demonstrated that if they can find one shred of precedent for furthering their liberal agenda and achieving the Utopian fairy tale they sell their voters, they will. And for me, this makes the Apple issue a precedent with a VERY slippery slope.
I just do not have the warm fuzzy I need to feel confident that - if they are able to force Apple's hands in this - that they would not attempt to take that 'back door' a step further in some way that could/would lead to unlawful invasions of privacy. Also, I do not like when government steps in and tells a business what it must do when that action has significant backlash for the company ... it takes me back forcing bakers to make a cake against their will.
Still undecided ... just sharing my $0.02.
And I wouldn't waver from that stance one iota ... except that (and here's where politics comes into play for me) I do NOT trust this administration with one one-thousandths of a millimeter of leeway when it comes to things like this. They've demonstrated that if they can find one shred of precedent for furthering their liberal agenda and achieving the Utopian fairy tale they sell their voters, they will. And for me, this makes the Apple issue a precedent with a VERY slippery slope.
I just do not have the warm fuzzy I need to feel confident that - if they are able to force Apple's hands in this - that they would not attempt to take that 'back door' a step further in some way that could/would lead to unlawful invasions of privacy. Also, I do not like when government steps in and tells a business what it must do when that action has significant backlash for the company ... it takes me back forcing bakers to make a cake against their will.
Still undecided ... just sharing my $0.02.
Tilted
..
Good for Bill Gates.
One of Rush's other topics yesterday, besides fragile little college pukes, was this situation. Some guy called in and pretty much said what I've said before on here: what the hell are you keeping on your phone that the government would care about, #1, and could get you arrested, #2?
Rush lost his chit. Said that you don't need to have anything on your phone, the feds will plant it there to frame you; there are so many laws that you're probably breaking one right now without even realizing it; blah blah blah.
That's ridiculous. The FBI doesn't have the manpower to run around snooping on everyone's phone and making up crap to incriminate random innocent citizens. Anyone who thinks they do is a crackpot. You'd have to come up on their radar for some reason - being involved in a terrorist attack, for example. You, random boring citizen, are not as important as you think you are and are perhaps getting too mental with the TV and movies you watch. The FBI doesn't give a damn about you and your dick pics.
I absolutely think Apple is being unreasonable, especially in this case, and I hope their stock tanks and they all go broke. I loathe Apple in the first place - bunch of control freak hippie Leftist hypocrites - and this just cements my opinion.
I suspect Mr Limbaugh does a terrible job of arguing this issue, even if he happens to be on the right side of it. There are a number of reasons for that, one being his likely selective targeting (meaning, which bad guys he wants to put himself in opposition to) and another being that he may well not understand himself what's at issue or the broader implications of it. What you say about what he had to say reinforces my suspicion. He's not arguing the real issues.
To be clear, what the government can do is not the only problem here - indeed, I don't even think it's the main problem. The problem is everything security related, it's all bad actors (whether foreign governments or thieves or anyone else). And we aren't just talking about the security and privacy of our pictures and texts, we're talking about all the things the modern world is built on - e.g., financial accounts.
We're also talking about a major legal issue - what kinds of things government can use the All Writs Act to force third parties to do. Again, Apple isn't being asked to turn over information or unlock a phone. It has turned over the information it has on its servers from this phone and it has tried to help the FBI get the information currently on the phone (a possibility that law enforcement may have itself ruined). Further, it has routinely accessed locked phones, pursuant to warrants, for law enforecment - when it could. Apple has tried to help law enforcement, it's done everything that could reasonably be asked for.
In this case, the government is asking for much more. By way of analogy, the government is asking Apple to create something like the bubonic plague (not in the health sense, but in the digitial security sense - in the sense of the risk it poses to systems that are ubiquitous in the modern world, indeed to the way the modern world works). In this specific case, the government thinks there's some chance this bubonic plague will be helpful. And it's insisting that this bacteria won't ever be able to get out to roam freely in the world, so creating it is safe. Further, the government is insisting that this bacteria can be created such that it can only infect a single particular person, so, you know, it's safe. But I think the government is just wrong on that last point, it isn't possible; and the government is being naive (or pretending to be naive) on the first point. That's not how the world works, and in particular it's not how technology works.
Again, the issue isn't just what the government might do with this bubonic plague. We can give the government all the benefit of the doubt we want. It's still an incredibly dangerous thing to do. There are countless potential bad actors in the world.
glhs837
Power with Control
Below is the only argument you need. If you don't agree, when will you be dropping off your set of apartment keys with the Sheriff? And letting the deputies in to set up the Dropcams? SMCSO is a good group, and you have nothing to hide, why not give them the tools to just check up on you "just in case"? Which part of secure from search and seizure isn't clear? Here's the text.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[2]
I don't have to have one damned reason to keep the govt out of my business other than the above. This "well, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind being watched 24/7" attitude amazes me.
Tilted
..
Sure.
But the issue goes far beyond whether we trust the government or a particular administration. The issue isn't just what the government will be able to do. (The legal issue is more about what the government can or can't do. That's a scary aspect of this whole thing - this represents, best I can tell, a meaningfully unprecedented use of the All Wits Act. And regarding that aspect of the situation, this is mostly about what power the government has going forward.)
This is about all of the bad actors in he world. Surely we can't trust all of them. And the damage that some of them could possibly do is not easy for us to wrap our minds around.
Tilted
..
It's not just dropping your keys off with the Sheriff. It's leaving copies of them where any bad actor, if they're motivated enough, can find them. And even thst doesn't do the potentialities justice, because bad actors could already get into your house if they wanted to bad enough. It's creating a way that those bad actors might, with a little work and a little cleverness, access all sorts of stuff. It's making everything less secure, not just as from the government.
I would add, just to be clear on the legal aspects of this particular situation, that the 4th Amendment isn't really the problem in this case. (I realize you're referring to it as it might relate more generally.) The county government owns this phone and has effectively granted the FBI permission to do what it wants with the phone. And as for the iCloud backups, the access to them probably easily fell outside the limitations of the 4th Amendment.
But then again you've always been ready to give up on big portions of the constitution.
The Feds have played their version of the "It's for the children" and expected to have the usual brain shuts down response, and it works in so many cases.
Tilted
..
I should add, I own Apple stock.
I think taking this position, and fighting this fight, will hurt Apple's business. How much? I don't know. But I think there is far more downside risk in this than there is benefit for Apple. I suspect the leadership at Apple sees it that way as well. It would have been far better for Apple to privately agree to do what the FBI wanted in this case, and avoid the government taking this fight public. But that would have, in my opinion, been wrong - it would have been betraying their customers and exposing people in general to significant risks down the road.
So I am proud of them for what they are doing, even though it has the potential to be quite bad for me financially. In fact, I wrote Mr. Cook an email - the first time I've ever sent an email to a company I've invested in. The point is, even though I think this hurts me financially, I hope they continue this fight as long as is practicable. It's the right thing to do. The longer it goes on, the more money it will probably cost me (at least, on an expected return basis). But I'm okay with that, some things are more important than money. And the potential consequences of losing this fight, of not holding this particular piece of ground, of waiting until it is too late to realize what's at stake, will matter more in 10 years than any amount of money that I have to lose (well, mostly because I don't have much to lose
).
EDIT: To add, as I realize that what I've said could be misconstrued, I think this is expected value negative for Apple [/b]even if[/i] it wins this fight. Indeed, if it wins in court, I think that will be worse for Apple's business, at least here in the U.S., than if it loses in court - especially if it loses quickly. The longer this goes on, the worse I think it is for Apple, win or lose. So, if my own financial interests were all that were at stake, I would prefer Apple just give in now. But as it is, I support them fighting this.
I think taking this position, and fighting this fight, will hurt Apple's business. How much? I don't know. But I think there is far more downside risk in this than there is benefit for Apple. I suspect the leadership at Apple sees it that way as well. It would have been far better for Apple to privately agree to do what the FBI wanted in this case, and avoid the government taking this fight public. But that would have, in my opinion, been wrong - it would have been betraying their customers and exposing people in general to significant risks down the road.
So I am proud of them for what they are doing, even though it has the potential to be quite bad for me financially. In fact, I wrote Mr. Cook an email - the first time I've ever sent an email to a company I've invested in. The point is, even though I think this hurts me financially, I hope they continue this fight as long as is practicable. It's the right thing to do. The longer it goes on, the more money it will probably cost me (at least, on an expected return basis). But I'm okay with that, some things are more important than money. And the potential consequences of losing this fight, of not holding this particular piece of ground, of waiting until it is too late to realize what's at stake, will matter more in 10 years than any amount of money that I have to lose (well, mostly because I don't have much to lose
).EDIT: To add, as I realize that what I've said could be misconstrued, I think this is expected value negative for Apple [/b]even if[/i] it wins this fight. Indeed, if it wins in court, I think that will be worse for Apple's business, at least here in the U.S., than if it loses in court - especially if it loses quickly. The longer this goes on, the worse I think it is for Apple, win or lose. So, if my own financial interests were all that were at stake, I would prefer Apple just give in now. But as it is, I support them fighting this.
Last edited:
Show me where in the Constitution it says cellphones of terrorists or suspected terrorists are sacred and should be kept private.
glhs837
Power with Control
I get that the 4th doesn't apply to this phone, but it's not this phone talking about, it's about forcing Apple to make a master key, as it were. which, as you note, will most likely be released into the wild. But even if it isn't, forcing a private entity to do this isn't right.
You should sell it immediately.
I'm kind of proud of my Iphone for once.