Slashdot Mirror
N. Carolina Senator Drafting Bill To Criminalize Apple's Refusal To Aid Decryption (arstechnica.com)
Ars Technica reports that North Carolina senator Richard Burr says he plans to introduce legislation "to criminalize a company's refusal to aid decryption efforts as part of a governmental investigation." In a USA Today op-ed, Burr, griping that "[t]he newest Apple operating systems allow device access only to users," even Apple itself can't get in," drags out the usual bugaboos: "Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks."
Updated Friday 12:40pm EST: The Wall Street Journal reports Senate Panel Chief Decides Against Plan to Criminalize Firms That Don't Decipher Encrypted Messages
Updated Friday 12:40pm EST: The Wall Street Journal reports Senate Panel Chief Decides Against Plan to Criminalize Firms That Don't Decipher Encrypted Messages
Fix Unicode already.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Ars might want to update its rewrite of the WSJ story. Burr isn't submitting the bill. http://www.wsj.com/articles/se...
Philandering senators.
Thirty four characters live here.
Timothy...what the F? What is (TM) and the "a" all over? Unreadable! The new owners need to do something about this.
I'd put my head of custodial engineering, senior front desk receptionist, and half a dozen mac store geniuses on it.. never let it be said they didn't help in the investigation.. It's just to hard.
Within the arms of tragedy, there is little comfort in being right.
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
The Constitution protects EVERYONE, not just "good people", but EVERYONE from unreasonable search and seizure.
It also allows EVERYONE to refuse to answer on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.
When Apple configured it's devices so that they could not decrypt the phones themselves, they were ENFORCING those rights that you would so gladly trample all over.
I cannot wait until you, your traitorous cronies and the rest of the Congressional, Executive and Judicial branches are held accountable for their Treason and Traitorous activities since 9/11. We can fix the deficit by selling tickets to your executions (the punishment for Treason during a time of war).
What happened to slashdot? Is it just an automated news aggregator now?
I have to return some videotapes...
Have a special version of iOS that secretly has a backdoor. Record the conversations of politicians. Then start to anonymously trickle the most embarrassing ones out, while releasing an update to iOS that removes the backdoor.
Think of the CHILDREN that will no doubt die if this phone isn't de-crypted!
This Senator needs to be recalled..
Yes make due process illegal. Make any questioning of the government illegal. Give the government all the power they want no questions asked. 1984 you have arrived.
Ah, such totally rich political theater, no doubt pandering to his base. I believe we all agree that beginning with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co, and culminating with Citizens United, even if this weren't the preposterous legislative proposal of a buffoon used car salesman, the idea of a corporation being held criminally responsible for anything in the USA is utterly hilarious.
Enough said.
Typical GOP BS. Wait for this to be struck down when it is challenged by deep-pockets Apple.
Constitution doesn't apply anymore. Just meandering case law, executive orders, and things like Open Letters from the ATF
It's not like we really honored the US Constitution since the so-called "patriot act" after 911. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." When will we learn?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Maybe Burr is backpedaling because of this: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_APPLE_ENCRYPTION_ALLIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I think the quote went something like this:
"I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The proposed legislation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way competent, and was motivated purely by ignorance, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and any other citizen and I hereby undertake not to submit any such nonsense at any time in the future."
"Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks."
Well, so do politicians, lobbyists, members of party clubs, members of shooting clubs,
bank chairmen, fast wives of the preceeding...
And divorce lawyers, pissed-off girlfriends, and universities want access, too.
Apple can dress this up all they like, but they're a company that sells your location, mines your e-mail, selects which music you listen to, and makes a tidy profit from all of that. The idea that somehow one's iPhone now contains your soul and that should be exempt from a court ordered search underscores how Tim Cook views Apple's place in your life. This isn't about some unreasonable search and seizure - some mass collect of phone records - some abstract "what will happen next?" This is a specific request for a specific iPhone that a judge has deemed within the constitutionality of the United States. I am mystified by the support that Apple is garnering. I am surprised that young people today trust a for-profit multi-national corporation more than a federal judge. I am curious why Apple is thinking that if they break open this one phone, then all the security dominoes fall and civilization is left in ruins.
They can have my encryption when they outlaw all firearms.
What the hell does one have to do with another?
Dickie Burr wants to make it a crime? Well, good luck throwing a corporation in jail there, Dickie, you moron.
I don't respond to AC's.
But when someone intercepted, recorded and released an embarrassing conversation made by Newt Gringrich in Gainesville, FL after this law was passed, no one was prosecuted.
The people who taped the conversation were, in fact, prosecuted, and pled guilty to illegal wiretapping. see: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04...
Or, for more details: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jba...
Except that the person is question is dead and therefore has no constitutional rights. I agree with what you're saying on premise, that Apple shouldn't be compelled to help and that if they did the fruits of their labors would undoubtedly be misused in other areas. In this particular instance though, it's not a constitutional issue.
Aside from the issue that this is a really stupid policy, can we please stop paying attention when so-and-so introduces legislation? ninety-nine times out of a hundred Introducing legislation is a cheap stunt used to run for election, knowing that the legislation will be referred to a subcommittee and will never again see the light of day. It might as well be a press release.
Sen. Burr must not be up to date on his constitutional law. The constitution expressly forbids ex post facto laws, which are defined as laws "that retroactively change the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law." From Wikipedia: "Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He will have left the country by then ?
only senators and outlaws will have iphones.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Sure they could subpoena source code or existing tools- the issue here is demanding Apple provide a service such as developing a tool to crack the device. This is patently unconstitutional.
love is just extroverted narcissism
as for : "Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks."
Politicians, lobbyists, the'good-old-boy' network of judges, bank chairmen, business owners, councilmen, police,
any sort of extreme-fantasy group members, high-school kids, teachers, university faculty and atheletes ALSO
use this, as well as boyfriends, husbands, wives and girlfriends who are 'out-of-bounds'
The federal, state, and local law-enforcement personnel want access on an overwhelming scale, for their own private perusal...
Nothing is too small to trip the sirens, easy to avoid announcing the 'protected' peoples foibles...
Divorce lawyers want access, too.
When Tax rates (combined all government taxes/fees) exceeds 50%, I would suggest to you that we have indentured servitude. Just saying
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Speaking of "read the Constitution, Fucktard", maybe you should try doing that, since you obviously missed the part where Treason is defined.
Odds are he starts quickly, to get his name in the limelight. Boiler-plate effort is initially launched: corporation does X, criminal penalties.
Then as he garners support for the bill, people better informed that he would have counted on basically state: "No way I'm ever supporting that". And the bill gets altered, or possibly dropped as the Senator gains an education.
The drafting of the bill, with a (Republican) name pasted all over it was a publicity stunt combined with legislation. The Senator got his name in the papers, and 90% of the time that's enough.
What is troubling is that I fear if the bill had passed (it takes time, so it's not a deep fear), we would have had to endure hearing of how Apple _broke the law_ when in fact the law was written after Apple acted. If you think that's a dumb fear, keep in mind that Hillary's email server wasn't illegal until years after it was created, and it was shutdown as soon as it was illegal.
When a 50% tax rate is levied on Billionaires, will those Billionaires be the same as indentured servants? If so, I want in.
And as part of the PATRIOT II act we'll criminalize any Congress member who votes "no" because clearly they refuse to aid national security. I think Apple picked just the right time to make a stand and put the US in a lose-lose situation, either they back down (unlikely) or lose (lots of good PR) or win and Apple is forced to decrypt this one phone while most their market moves to phones with Secure Enclave, so by the time the case closes (expect appeals) they can rightfully say it's irrelevant now because Apple can't do that anymore. And then the government has to try a new round if they want to force Apple to redesign their hardware to include a backdoor. It's a lot better for Apple than a law suit about the current system.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason
Not really. Either way this decision goes down, Apple is not engaging in acts to overthrow this country, or provide aid to an enemy. Farook is/was a US citizen and the FBI has shown no evidence* that he was working with any foreign nationals. So there's no treason demonstrated there either. Apple has no standing as a defendant in this case, so the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.
What Apple is protecting is the intangible value of the perception of security that their technology has. Should Apple demonstrate a method for cracking iOS encryption, others will look for and eventually discover it. I wouldn't trust FBI employees not to divulge it to various totalitarian regimes' security services. Like Mi5.
*Evidence like call, e-mail or SMS metadata provided by Farook's cellular carrier.
Have gnu, will travel.
Also: 100% honest, hard-working, law-abiding people, who don't want thieves and nosy government types all up in their business. Oh, and by the way, my totally un-scientific estimate says 99.999% of everyone using an iPhone's nigh-unto unbreakable encryption are the law-abiding types. This is just another case of government and 'law enforcement' (in quotes because I use the term loosely anymore) overreach; it's also disingenuous, they just want to put a gun to Apple's head to make them give them a way to unlock and decrypt ANY iPhone, not just the one. Tough shit, don't care, fuck off.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
We already have "TSA luggage locks" that have a second keyhole (or additional keyhole for combination locks) so a TSA master key can unlock them for luggage inspection. Ask the average person whether they would put a lock like that on the doors to their home. Ask the heads of the companies that make locks, especially the higher-security locks like Medeco and ASSA Abloy, if they would make them (or even bother designing them).
Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks
Forgot one: Senators
So, here is the story:
The California government purchases an iPhone (hey it is designed in California!) for the terrorist they hired (notice how most news organizations and the president like to call him a mass shooter to further their agenda of gun control instead of a terrorist that they were?).
Being soooooo tech savvy, their IT department did not install away that allowed them (the gov) to access the phone that they owned and issued. It really seems that this whole encryption debate is design to mask the fact the the government is inept.
How may companies would issue a device they could not control?
A few lessons on the 4th and 5th amendments...
First, self incrimination, i.e. the 5th amendment, has absolutely no bearing on this case. If a police officer, prosecutor, congressional tribunal, what-have-you, asks you a question that may be used to incriminate you of a crime, you have the right to say, "I plead the 5th." But your constitutional protections end there; they have every right to look for evidence that may incriminate you outside of your own self. In this matter, we have a phone. It's not a person. It is an object that presents itself as evidence, ergo it may be used as such.
Second, and more difficult to accept, the 4th amendment has no bearing on this case either. The 4th amendment protects an individual's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It begins and ends with the individual. This phone was not unlawfully seized. It didn't even belong to the individual; it belonged to the company he worked for. And the company who owns the property surrendered it willingly to law enforcement. (Side tangent lesson: don't ever use a company phone EVER for anything other than business. It may be used against you for any crime.)
Third, I don't see how treason plays into any of this. Article III, section 3 defines treason as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The charges I believe Apple will be facing is Obstruction of Justice, as, from the perception of the government, they are interfering with an investigation. And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511, which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with a court order directing such assistance."
Apple is trying to set a new precedent, one I would consider a push-back for all the illegal surveillance the US Government has done over the last fifteen years. They are attempting to make digital-communication-evidence-gathering impossible if an individual so wills it. I don't know whether they'll be successful or not.
For the record, I am not a lawyer, but it's my country and my laws as much as the rest of yours, so I feel responsible to understand them.
For law-abiding citizens, good encryption is the first line of defense against criminals accessing our personal information and stealing our identities. With our philosophy of “innocent until proven guilty,” we should first protect the good people properly. Then within those constraints, we can find ways to deal with the criminals without violating people’s rights.
If they had covered their tracks, then nobody would know they were doing those things, and if they somehow do know, then they aren't using it to cover their tracks are they?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They can have my encryption when they outlaw all firearms.
So you're willing to get screwed twice then?
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Would be interesting to see them try that. A US court would/should see that as a blatant attempt to circumvent the ex post facto law prohibition.
Do you realize that all kinds of people probably have the exact specific key to your home, and that thousands of people have the master key. Even the most expensive locks you can get at your typical Home Depot only have at most 100,000 different combinations (most brands have fewer).
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
The world governments, because let not kid ourselves they all want in on this, can't, don't and won't curtail their agents in their desire to rid the world of all the baddies and therefore should never be trusted nor given the keys to the kingdom. The response from Apple is the right one given the core issue which is not catching the perpetrators but protecting us all from the overreach of the governments we have elected and then chosen to ignore. Those who still foolishly believe that we live in free societies are confused. Just because we put locks on the inside of our doors doesn't make them any less a cage. To the American public, please tell this idiot and all the idiots that agree with his views to get lost. Unless you want the FBI knocking on your door because you are the "wrong" sort as defined by the government which is what you will get should this assault on freedom be permitted.
To be fair, the TSA locks are more of a service to you than the TSA. You are welcome to put any lock on your bag. They are allowed to cut it off to inspect the contents of the bag without compensating you for the loss of the lock. (And they won't have trouble removing any usual luggage lock with some bolt cutters.) Not sure if this is a right they've had forever but certainly they've had the right to inspect any bag since 9/11. This is probably a good thing, really. They've always had the right to X-ray all bags. The alternative would be for them to refuse to put your bag on the plane until you came down and opened it for them. This would make you choose either
1) Not getting on the plane with your bag, an option only criminals would pick--if your bag is full of socks and underwear, you'll open it without hesitation if the alternative is missing your vacation or business trip.
2) Simply opening the suitcase for them
But this process would take time and they wouldn't let you on until the bag was deemed safe. You might miss your flight, which is a lot more inconvenient than having them look inside.
I'm not a fan of the TSA in general either but some of the 9/11 policies are actually pretty good. This is one of them. It's a miracle nothing ever happened before--even non-terrorist things like someone putting lighter fluid or loaded hand guns with the safety off in their bag can cause major injuries that would otherwise be 100% preventable. Locking the cockpit is also a good idea. The other policy that gets my approval is not allowing people at gates who don't have tickets. Airports themselves could have made that policy but it's a good one simply from a reducing ridiculous amounts of traffic perspective. It means as a passenger I can get a seat in the gate waiting area because it's not full of 250 aunts, uncles, children, and other assorted people waiting for the previous plane to come in.
Envy is such an ugly color on you.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Criminals use guns, so ban all those too.
Also ban food, air, and the ability to reproduce.
There's two definitions in the Constitution: Aiding and abetting America's enemies and committing acts of war against America or her States.
Remember that next time you hear someone defend something the government does against its citizens as "war powers".
"Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks."
As are Senators, Congressmen, and some presidential candidates. *cough*
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Don't be silly. Tax rates on Billionaires will never exceed the current 0%. They would never allow it.
I call bullshit. Show me how to do this and I'll retract my statement and issue an apology.
Otherwise, tell me just exactly how would my wife and I could receive "$75,000 in benefits and credits". From who, from where, and how?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
typical Home Depot only have at most 100,000 different combinations (most brands have fewer).
only need one: Bolt-cutter.
mfwright@batnet.com
Legislation is unnecessary. If this is an order from a Judge, then failure to comply means they're in contempt of court, for which there isn't much legal recourse. The Judge can simply have corporate officers jailed until they comply.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
(citations needed)
Care to detail the 75,000$ claim of yours? Regionality, specific claims details, local economic concerns, relative cost-of-living, and any other info relevant to your statement?
Of course Apple can aid decryption -- they have a large number of computers that can assist in brute-forcing AES. Done.
Oh, you mean extraordinary aid to get it done before the heat death of the universe? Well, that may or may not be possible, depending on how the existing code and hardware work. A good look at the source code would settle the matter one way or the other. As for Court Orders, they can only be for things directly before the court. Otherwise, it's "legislating from the bench".
Forcing backdoors would take a law like this one, if it were constitutional and popular enough to pass. Neither very likely, but our system has been deeply corrupted by powerful interests and bureaucracies.
But it might pass both if the backdoor required physical access (no remotes) AND a specific search warrent. Send warrent & device, Apple unlocks for $1000. Unfortunately, the DAs have been corrupted by the police (need them to build cases) so there will be abuse since it is unlikely to be punished.
Except that is far lower on the uber rich then it has been in the past. And in that past we were far more innovative and had a healthier society.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
You seriously believe that NSA won't get their hands on this ? ? ? Very naive.
And now you have wandered into the land of utter bullshit. Please show us all those unemployed people pulling down 75 large from the government.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
http://www.cato.org/publicatio...
Can't find anything to substantiate the $75K figure. . .
Back in the 90's, the feds declared encryption to be a munition.
Therefore, not only does encryption deserve 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment protections, it deserves 2nd Amendment protection too.
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
The Constitution protects EVERYONE, not just "good people", but EVERYONE from unreasonable search and seizure.
It also allows EVERYONE to refuse to answer on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.
When Apple configured it's devices so that they could not decrypt the phones themselves, they were ENFORCING those rights that you would so gladly trample all over.
I cannot wait until you, your traitorous cronies and the rest of the Congressional, Executive and Judicial branches are held accountable for their Treason and Traitorous activities since 9/11. We can fix the deficit by selling tickets to your executions (the punishment for Treason during a time of war).
Oh fuck no.
In this case, it's an employer-owned phone issued to the killer that Apple is being asked to prevent from wiping itself so it can be UNLOCKED, and the actual OWNER of the phone has agreed to the attempt at unlocking.
One backdoor against a dead man can be used against the living. It is *very much* a constitutional issue.
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
Spare us the histrionics. Treason is a very narrowly defined crime in the US and it isn't remotely in play here on either side. I think Apple is completely justified to refuse this ridiculous court order but no one at Apple is in danger of being tried for treason or needs to protect themselves from such accusations.
You do realize that the actual law is considerably more nuanced than you are implying, right? Protections against self incrimination do not necessarily apply to evidence you generate including evidence left on computers. The accused doesn't have to help the government make their case against him but that doesn't mean the government can't take action to gather the evidence. What is at stake here is whether the government should be able to compel a company to take extraordinary action to defeat security measures against a third party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self incrimination. If the phone was unlocked and unecrypted then this isn't even a conversation.
When Tax rates (combined all government taxes/fees) exceeds 50%, I would suggest to you that we have indentured servitude. Just saying
The effective tax rate of all taxes and fees is well below 50%, at least in the US. On the federal level, it is less than 30%, including Social Security/Medicare. Yes, there are local sales and income taxes, but, then, most people like to have police and fire protection, ambulance services, highways, etc.
In its simplest form, government is funded by taxes with the purpose of the government to be for the protection of people and property. If you take the high road and say one human live is as valuable as another, then the portion of taxes used to protect people is equally distributed. What is left, is the protection of property. Like insurance, shouldn't you pay more for the protection of your property if you have more property to protect? As such, shouldn't the wealthy be paying a larger share of their income to taxes to protect their larger share of the benefit of government protection?
Updated
To suggest that it would be as you said is to suggest that laws can't ever be made that require companies or people to change what they may have formerly been doing. That is only true to the extent that they will generally not be expected to change things that are genuinely outside of their control, such as trying to change something that has already happened, or control property that may have formerly been theirs, but whose ownership has been lawfully transferred to somebody else. Whether a company cooperates with law enforcement, however, is by definition entirely in their control and so the prohibition against making laws apply to things which happened before the law was made would not be applicable if the company were to continue to refuse afterwards.
The biggest issue I would have with a law like this is that in some cases, it may be impossible for a company to show that it tried to cooperate with a request, because with particularly strong encryption no indication of effort to try decrypting would necessarily even exist unless the effort were successful, and it can be utterly impossible to guarantee success in any reasonable amount of time. This is further complicated by the fact that understanding why it it is impossible to guarantee success generally requires understanding the mathematics behind it that most people would not want to be bothered learning. The remaining alternatives are to either take an expert's word for it that it is hard without really understanding why, or to equally blindly believe that such so-called experts are actually not being truthful about how difficult it is, and attempting to obscure the issue with mathematics that they can't comprehend.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They can have my encryption when they outlaw all firearms.
What the hell does one have to do with another?
Until 1992, export of encryption from the United States (basically, any product or software using it had to be in-country only) was banned; classified on the US Munitions List as an "auxiliary military equipment." It wasn't just export, but there were regulatory hurdles regular products needed to go through. I remember using Netscape in the early 90s, and there was a "U.S. version" and an "international version," the latter of which included much weaker encryption, but getting the US version was such a pain in the ass that most people stuck with the international version.
So encryption was once classified as munitions, but while personal firearms never seem to get much regulation, strong encryption got a ban.
Laws can't be made that make previous activity criminal.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Like insurance, shouldn't you pay more for the protection of your property if you have more property to protect? As such, shouldn't the wealthy be paying a larger share of their income to taxes to protect their larger share of the benefit of government protection?
Your argument doesn't make sense. Of course the rich should pay more in taxes. But should they pay a higher percentage? Your "insurance" analogy does not support that. If I insure twice as much value, I pay twice as much, not three times as much.
Progressive taxation cannot be justified in terms of paying for services. It can only be justified if you believe that government should be an instrument of social justice.
This was the plan all along. John McAfee was the only really unexpected thing from the narrative. Taking him up on his offer clears Apple, gets the government what they want, and no legislation has to happen, but they're not going to McAfee up on his offer.
Nope, they're just going to stick to the original plan and push legislation. Now that justice Scalia is conveniently dead you don't have to worry about the supreme court blocking it.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Actually I think it went more like this:
"I'm so very, very very, very... FUCK YOU!!!"
Assuming a thief was going to use a key to get in (as opposed to breaking a window or using a bolt cutter on the lock), they would need to carry 100,000 different keys. Even if they could try one every second, it would take them over 27 hours to try them all. Contrast this with a hypothetical "TSA-Approved Home Lock" which had a master key hole that was the same across all locks. A thief could walk up with one key, put it in the lock, and be assured that it would open.
So, no, the "100,000 different combinations lock" isn't unbreakable, but it's a giant leap ahead of a line of locks that share the same master key.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
http://www.rncmall.com/2015/04...
Granted it is an RNC piece.
But here is the rub, your argument is just pedantic, quibbling over the numbers, rather than the actual problem. At some point, socialism runs out of other peoples money. You can see the very real results in places like Greece. And now, you have Bernie promising another 18 Trillion dollars in "free" stuff (and the taxes needed to fund it). But hey, its "free" (except it isn't).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Third, I don't see how treason plays into any of this. Article III, section 3 defines treason as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I'm playing devil's advocate here, not actually accusing Apple of anything, certainly not treason. That said, if the San Bernardino murderers declared loyalty to ISIS and the government suspects the phone contains unknown information related to ISIS (say a contact) then prohibiting access to that information could arguably be providing aid to ISIS. Additionally it could be argued that ISIS is by its own declaration at war with the USA and thereby be considered an enemy. I wouldn't be so sure that a charge of treason could not somehow be constructed. Now of course that is a political step I doubt any government official would be willing to take, yet it seems technically plausible.
Keep in mind that all the FBI needs Apple to do is to digitally sign a modified version of iOS so that the phone's hardware will accept and run it. Failure to digitally sign this version of iOS could conceivably be argued to aid to ISIS. I am not saying such an accusation is wise or just, merely that it is conceivable that a government lawyer may make such a claim in court.
What I heard was more like "Problem, Freedom?"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
So, my understanding is that Apple is refusing to create a version of iOS that would allow FBI to crack encryption on this one phone because then it can be used to do the same on other phones, right? I totally get it, privacy of everyone will be compromised and FBI can't be trusted. But in this particular case a (hopefully) independent judge reviewed the case and ordered Apple to help decrypt the phone. It changes everything, and I don't see why it wouldn't be ok to break encryption on a per case basis under judicial system oversight. So, why can't FBI deliver the phone to Apple, and Apple decrypt this one particular phone without releasing the compromised version of iOS to anyone? And do the same if and when a judge orders the same for another particular phone? What am I missing here? Have the "bad" version of iOS encrypted on a USB stick with a passphrase that only Tim Cook knows, so only he can authorize the decryption on a per case basis? Why not?
Senator Richard Burr is a well known North Carolina Dick.
He began his career as a clown, and is rapidly going downhill.
To best understand his world view, take this photo and add a small Hitler moustache.
If you are especially proud of your artistic ability, you might want to share it with him.
Contact Senator Burr
Washington, DC
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154
Fax: (202) 228-2981
Apparently Apple has helped the US Government decrypt iPhones at least SEVENTY times in the past.
Citation: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
It is curious that Apple does not want to decrypt the phone of a jihadi (fanatical enemy of all Free People, based on Koran 9:29), but has no problem unlocking phones of US citizens. Seems like Apple prefers to defend foreign enemies and doesn't care about citizens (but then, the same can be said of mainstream media and politicians too).
And being asked to tear down the security mechanisms in your proprietary operating system comes quite close in comparison.
Apple is being asked to do no such thing. All the FBI needs is a version of iOS that skips the passcode count limit and the delay between passcode entry attempts. Quite trivial modifications. The FBI could certainly make such changes. What is needed from Apple is to digitally sign that updated iOS so that the hardware will accept it and run it. Furthermore if Apple makes such changes they could add code to limit the modified iOS to only run on the device in question. The FBI would be unable to alter this new device limitation as they are unable to alter the passcode retry limit and delays. Any alteration of the code break the digital signature. Such an updated iOS from Apple could not be run on any other phone.
The real problem is that the government's claim this is a one-time event is BS. There is no limitation preventing another judge on any other case from issuing a similar order to Apple.
Top 1% wage earners ($380k+) paid 38.02% of the federal income taxes in 2010 and it is higher % now.
That bill is proposing an ex post facto law which is explicitly barred by the US Constitution.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
There's other factors to consider. For one, income isn't exactly equal in terms of what it means. You might think a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, but a single dollar to a poor person has a lot more marginal value than it does to a billionaire.
There's a certain amount of income that's basically your core survival amount. For the sake of argument, let's say $15k (which may vary greatly). Taking money away here is going to seriously threaten your ability to just get by.
Then comes the next level, where you start to add in basic amenities, and minor luxuries like entertainment, saving money, the occasional vacation. Taking money from this amount doesn't threaten you, but it might lower the niceties that you can afford (maybe you only go out once a week to places like Chipotle rather than going out 2-3 times a week to a steakhouse). It's not the end of the world, but you notice.
Eventually, we get to the point where you're making so much money that the difference in amenities that more money will buy is approaching a ridiculous level, like a question of 187 diamonds encrusted on the steering wheel of your Yacht rather than 188. We're talking incomes into the millions of dollars here. At this point, you're not even going to notice an extra dollar, because it represents a tiny fraction of your income. And even if we start talking percentages of your income, the amount that you're foregoing may be staggeringly huge, but it has minimal real impact on your lifestyle. If I make $10 million a year, and I pay 10% more in taxes, that's a million more I pay - but I won't notice it the same way that someone making $50k notices losing an extra $5k. Moreover, at this level, I have lots of money I can afford to invest into making even more money.
So that's partly why progressive taxation can make sense, because of the marginal value of that income. But really, the core problem in many cases is that last sentence above, because the majority of wealth isn't in wage income. Really rich people make their money off investments, and capital gains is taxed far less than wage income, and it's definitely not indexed progressively (or at all).
Re-using a "backdoor" is preventable. All the FBI needs is a version of iOS that skips the passcode count limit and the delay between passcode entry attempts. Quite trivial modifications. The FBI could certainly make such changes. What is needed from Apple is to digitally sign that updated iOS so that the hardware will accept it and run it. Furthermore if Apple makes such changes they could add code to limit the modified iOS to only run on the device in question. The FBI would be unable to alter this new device limitation as they are unable to alter the passcode retry limit and delays. Any alteration of the code breaks the digital signature. Such an updated iOS from Apple could not be run on any other phone.
The real problem is that the government's claim this is a one-time event is BS. There is no limitation preventing another judge on any other case from issuing a similar order to Apple.
Like insurance, shouldn't you pay more for the protection of your property if you have more property to protect? As such, shouldn't the wealthy be paying a larger share of their income to taxes to protect their larger share of the benefit of government protection?
Your argument doesn't make sense. Of course the rich should pay more in taxes. But should they pay a higher percentage? Your "insurance" analogy does not support that. If I insure twice as much value, I pay twice as much, not three times as much.
Progressive taxation cannot be justified in terms of paying for services. It can only be justified if you believe that government should be an instrument of social justice.
I'm not saying they should pay a higher percentage, but the reality is, according to the OMB the top 10% pay the lowest percentage of total income as taxes, while the lowest 20% pay the highest percentage of total income as taxes.
As for insurance, if you buy a car that cost three times as much as I do, you would expect to pay three times the insurance, assume the other factors being the same. And yet, with taxes, at least in the US, it does not work that way. Again, according to the government's own numbers, the more you earn, the percentage paid in taxes decreases. You often hear quoted that the top 10% pay 50% of the taxes and while that is true, that is talking about in dollars paid, not as a percentage of income. Since the OP was about the cumulative tax burden of local, state and federal, including sales taxes, the more you have, the less percentage of it you pay.
As for the government being an instrument of social justice or not, that has nothing to do with it. The US had it's best economic growth at the same time it had its highest income tax rates. What determines economic growth is the purchasing power of the middle class, not the poor or the wealthy. However, since the 1980s, the middle class has received the heaviest tax burden (as a percentage of income) and has dwindled. Contrast that with, say, Germany that has a strong middle class and a high tax burden. They have a robust economy, even with many social programs beyond what the US has.
Social spending isn't the drain, it is the accumulation of wealth by the very top few percentages that drains the economy. Money in the hands of the lower and middle classes is used predominately to purchase direct goods and services, therefore stimulating supply and demand. Everybody wins. However, in the hands of the wealthy, it tends to accumulate which means it is actually removed from the economy. In this way, it has the same effect as government borrowing and actually slows the economy.
If one million people go out and purchase a new refrigerator, that will create more jobs than one person buying a million dollar boat. In addition the wages paid for those jobs will further stimulate the purchase of goods and services upto seven times the original dollar amount.
Remember, prior to the 1980s, the United States had a progressive tax system and had it's greatest economic growth period. Since then, when the tax system was flattened, at the expense of the middle and lower classes, growth, outside of speculative ventures, has declined.
The thinking is that if you're call yourself a "software developer" instead of something more specialized like "finite difference model developer" then it's very likely that you will work on more than one project in your career. Maybe you will spend 15 years on that job, but then another 25 years maintaining accounting software, or modelling something else, or possibly be getting involved somewhere in the periphery of that "internet" fad that you heard about last year, or writing a game, or hacking embedded controllers, or .. software developers in general do a whole lot of things.
Perhaps you really will spend many decades all doing one single type of application. Interesting (I guess). Also EXTREMELY uncommon.
And as it happens, character sets are something that are used, to at least some extent, in a great many applications. Not all computing is merely numeric and written in FORTRAN IV. Most of us have real strings and are expected to know how to use them! And as it happens, when you walk up to the FORTRAN greybeard, it turns out that (at least initially) you probably even expect it from him. He might make excuses for why he never had to learn about strings, and if the excuses are believable, then you will have a great story to tell your friends. ("Wow, this guy... can you believe it? He was fuckin' sharp too, and laughed when I showed him my C code, saying 'holy crap that must run slow,' and then he started fixing my matrix calcs. I asked, 'you do this all day?' and he stared back and replied, 'I do this all century, little mortal. I just don't know strings yet because I haven't yet gotten around to reading that new article about, what are you kids calling it? SNOBOL?'")
But you're probably not going to believe his excuse, so the story will be less interesting and more pathetic.
Legislation is unnecessary. If this is an order from a Judge, then failure to comply means they're in contempt of court, for which there isn't much legal recourse. The Judge can simply have corporate officers jailed until they comply.
Or levy a fine. Say a daily fine until compliance. The judge can choose a fine amount that hurts financially. In short, corporations can be compelled.
but justice Scala is out of the court and the gop is pulling to be able to name there man to replace him.
Liberal/progressives/socialists/etc know this but also know that giving amounts instead of percentages is an easy way to bring hate and anger and resentment to people.
One guy makes 10 thousand and his neighbor makes 100 thousand. Taxes get cut 5% across the board.
The guy thinks it's fair when he is told they both get to keep an extra 5% of their salary.
Alternatively
The first guy is told that he is being cheated by the rich. Instead of percentages, he is told that the rich guy gets a $500 tax cut and that he is only getting a $50 tax cut. The first guy is now angry and outraged and will want to vote someone in that will make that other guy suffer for screwing him over.
I need to learn this technique...
What a surprise that slashdot made no mention of the fact that Richard Burr is a Republican. Leaving it out allows the slashdot conservative base to more easily pretend that this bill isn't coming from one of their own.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
No, I completely expect they would, but frankly if you think the NSA doesn't already have a method of getting data from the phone then you're the one that is "Very naive". They don't need Apple, this is very much for show.
Also, as was mentioned by several other posters, there are pretty simple ways to limit re-use.
Study the Constitution sometime. The owners of the phone, San Bernardino county, consented to have the phone searched by the FBI and have he encryption broken. So the Fourth Amendment is not being violated. Now if San Bernardino county said no to the search, then yes the Fourth Amendment would be violated.
Farook did not own the phone. San Bernardino county owns the phone.
No it's not a constitutional issue because Farook did not own the phone. San Bernardino county owned the phone. Research before posting inane comments.
Uh, no? Insurance against theft includes the risk of theft. If you have 100 times as much of something, you sure as fuck are going to have reason to pay more than 100 times as much.
You're right, sort of. I mean, we can have armed guards and insurance and it'd probably cost less for the rich than paying at a higher rate of taxation. And then the poor could live in shit holes and be so incapable of resisting that we'd regular hear stories of the poor being killed trying to steal from golden spoon elites. But most wouldn't take the risk because they'd see there'd be no social justice from the government to avenge their death.
God forbid that the Justice system be part of government as an instrument of social justice. Or, we should just leave it all to reactive instead of preemptive actions. And then when the riots come and the elite are dragged to their deaths in a river of blood, we can put an equal number of terrorists/freedom fighters to the gallows, let a new elite take their ranks and become as tyrannous as the previous elite, and start the whole cycle over again.
It's the Jefferson way.
Since Sen. Richard Burr is clearly an expert on this (NOT). Apple should just hire him to do the work for the FBI. 1) Apple can now claim they have put an expert on the job. 2) Judge/FBI can't complain 3) The phone won't get cracked. Win/Win/Win :-)
Sure it can be justified. It's called derived benefit from public goods.
Just because you're ignorant to how things work, doesn't mean your ham handed attempts at rationalizing your stance are applicable.
The effective tax rate of all taxes and fees is well below 50%, at least in the US.
I've had a marginal tax rate over 50%, in the US. You may not realize that beyond a certain income level (still well below the 1%) you start losing your deductions. With every dollar you earn, your deductions drop a few cents. This can become a10% or so effective marginal tax rate. The Obamacare tax adds another ~4% marginal tax rate. Add state taxes and your 28% nominal tax rate can pass 50%, without being in the 1%.
My solution was to move out of California. I make a bit less money, but it's not like I was keeping the extra. Yes, I'm free not to work but that doesn't fund the state!
Taxes should be seen as a way to fund needed government programs, and not as an instrument of social justice, as the two goals often pull in opposite directions.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
thanks
Insurance against theft includes the risk of theft. If you have 100 times as much of something, you sure as fuck are going to have reason to pay more than 100 times as much.
No, this is backwards. The poor are far more likely to be victims of theft than the rich. Where you live is much more important than what you have.
Same here, though I still offer the apology for all the other bad legislation Burr's supported. I can only imagine that the sources of money changed so that Burr changed his mind in accordance with that.
Everything below $15K or whatever the minimum survivable income is, is tax free.
Anything above that..pays a flat tax.
That would be fair, and likely a reasonable amount (has to be less than the current 30%+ amounts I pay now and I am NOT rich) could be found, and pay for the basic Federal Govt, especially if we pare the Fed down a bit more to fit their constitutionally mandated functions.
Yes, I read how another 10% hits lower than higher wealth folks. But who is to say that a middle income families vacation is any more important that that 188th diamond on a yacht?
Is that for the govt to say? I hardly think so....I certainly don't read that in the constitution.
People paying taxes should be able to easily, on a post card....figure "You made $x. You pay y% of that...you owe $z.
Simple..fair.
Now..I don't have an answer for the capital gains taxes....sure you might wanna hit the rich there, but when you do...you also hit the lower wealth classes..as that they are investing their retirement and it gets hit with those same taxes, that as you say...affect them worse than it does the wealthy.
If you wanted to really get every last cent (even the money spent that was gained by illegal means)...do away with all income tax and do a national sales tax. NOT BOTH. You could either exempt necessities of life (food, meds, rent)..or offer a rebate on it EOY....that way you'd not over proportionatly hit the poor.
But you'd get all the tax from the wealthy that buy expensive things. You'd get money from folks that gain their income by criminal means, which usually is unreported.....but they too have to shop and buy things...etc.
If you did something like that...then you would have the individual voluntarily paying proportional taxes due to their increased spending power and desire to wield it to have the luxuries in life.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
With all due respect, this idea of crippling technology has had several evolutions, spanning parties and geography, and is not limited to merely this ridiculous occurrence in NC. Currently Matthew Titone (D) in NY and Jim Cooper (D) in CA have proposed legislation mandating backdoors. Hillary has endorsed a "Manhattan Project" to defeat device security. The clipper chip fiasco was brought to us by Bill Clinton. There are plenty of technological idiots in any political party from coast to coast.
Wanting the thieves who stole their way to the top to pay for it retroactively isn't envy. It's Justice.
Its a constitutional issue because the government is asking for Apple to CREATE something for them. The government does not have the power to compel people or corps to do actual work for them. The crux of this whole issue is, "can you legally make an unbreakable lock"
Good-bye
Actually, it pays more to "not work" in our socialistic economy than it does to work. The unmarried unemployed couple with two children can receive around $75,000 in benefits and credits. Why would anyone want to work?
I can't imagine being unemployed with two kids.
Oh wait, yes I can. I can imagine being driven completely insane by being bottled up with my spouse and two kids all fucking day long. Work provides valuable time out from the hell of home life!
If you were unemployed with a spouse and two kids you better have a very supportive spouse otherwise it'll be a freakin nightmare.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The poor are more likely to be robbed, but the total value of the robbery is much less. Hence, the overall risk is greater for the rich. Then again, it's a lot easier to track a mysterious billion dollars that someone comes into possession of. And it's one robbery to prove vs hundreds of robberies to prove. And the law is likely more interested in going after one big robbery than hundreds of small ones.
So, perhaps it all pans out in the end.
There is a difference between billionaires and people making $380,000.
The 6 figure crowd paying taxes, the billionaires? Not so much.
Progressive taxation cannot be justified in terms of paying for services. It can only be justified if you believe that government should be an instrument of social justice.
Yes it can.
1. It's pointless to tax the people who are going to get government welfare or those who barely make enough to not qualify for it as they in practical terms don't have any money. (so we need at least 2 brackets)
2. Beyond a certain point there are diminished returns on the quality of life improvement from a larger income. And at the edge between the 0% and the lowest nonzero bracket you want the change to be small enough that people don't try too hard to sneak into the 0% bracket (so more than 2 brackets is probably a good idea to smooth the transition)
3. 1 percentage point increase on a billion dollars is more money than a 1 percentage point increase on a hundred thousand. (so the top bracket should have the highest percentage tax)
So, if you need money, it makes the most sense to increase taxes on the wealthy because 1, they have all the money, 2 they will be harmed less by not having as much, and 3 you can increase the percentage less to make up the difference than if you'd aimed at a lower bracket.
Good comment. It's also funny that progressives/pocialists around here are all about bigger and bigger government. The Senator tried to make that so and they're upset.
Such an underrated movie.
I mean with so much shit going on in the world.. Are we really taking up time and re-sources on this crap..
What do we pay these guys for??
Buncha sniveling brats.. Boo Hoo.. you cant compell people to do things that aren't right..
I mean there is something in the constitution that prohibits this, and or these tactics,, right?
As much as I dislike Mcaffee's involvement in this, based on todays events I embrace his inclusion to some degree.. DO what the govt cant, and see what the govt really does about it..
I think these frivolous claims should be banned on face value alone..
Insted of wasting time of this non-sense crap, why not focus on a budget.
focus on your families
focus on climate change
focus on food
focus on famine
focus on how to clean up RIO-De-Janero's env for the olympics..
Pathetic.
The NSA aren't some magic wielding asshats.
They certainly do not have a backdoor. If they did, this would all be moot.
Double the dosage, voltage and tin foil.
I disagree. Progressive taxation simply aligns income tax more with disposable income than gross income. Ideally, there would be a straightforward way to calculate disposable income, but sadly there is not. As a percentage of disposable income, the poor are paying a disproportionately greater amount of tax than the wealthy. It also stands to reason that wealthier people are receiving greater benefit from societal structures, so it makes sense for them to make greater contributions to support those structures accordingly.
http://astutehosting.com/
We are no just as Communist.
Guess you are going to force them when other countries as for it.
Could be an international incident if you dont being as you done it for yourself.
and campaign contributions and laws whose text is provided by outside parties.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
The poor are more likely to be robbed, but the total value of the robbery is much less.
Not true. The rich have assets like financial securities and real estate that are not susceptible to theft. But their steal-able stuff, like TVs, cellphones, etc. are not much different than what a poor person has (if you think poor people don't have big TVs, go visit a trailer park). Poor people are more likely to carry cash. Crime is a much bigger burden on the poor.
"stole"
Some people who are at the top are thieves, but I'd argue that most of them aren't, by any reasonable definition of the word "thief".
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Can you not read? The top 1% includes the billionaires, and they pay more in taxes than you make.
I know a billionaire who has fed 10,000 Haitian children per day since the earthquake. What have you done lately?
The TSA luggage lock is voluntary. You can buy different luggage, or add a good padlock. You may then be hampered when traveling, as they collect you from the plane so you can open the lock for inspection.
The TSA key is the biggest idiot backdoor ever. A shared master key for all - and any good locksmith can take such a lock apart and make his own master key. And anyone can apply for baggage work and just steal one of the official keys. Surely, all hotel thieves has a TSA master key by now . . .
I disagree with the entire concept of slavery through income and wealth taxation and with the entire concept of building political power by redistribution of the stolen resources.
The poor are not contributing to society at all compare to the rich. Here, I said it: any poor person is contributing nothing compared to any rich person. A person running his or her business is contributing to society in ways that are much greater than any poor person because a business is a gigantic boon for the economy while a poor person is a drain on the economy.
My position is that nobody should have any income taken from them with any taxes, any income or wealth related tax over 0% is injustice and slavery and oppression and nothing else at all.
You can't handle the truth.
Ok, then make it easy.
Everything below $15K or whatever the minimum survivable income is, is tax free.
Anything above that..pays a flat tax.
Hell, make it refundable. I've seen people still seriously argue that my tax scheme is still 'regressive' when this is what I argue for:
Every adult US Citizen in good standing* receives $500/month as a big.
30% flat tax rate with exceptions being rare as hell.
Hell, they'll get upset at me when I mention that the current US tax system is more regressive than a flat tax(with a big standard deductible/exemption) - due to the way long term capital gains are treated, those I consider 'truly rich' make most of their money via capital gains, specifically long term, and end up paying a lower percentage than the upper-middle class.
Now..I don't have an answer for the capital gains taxes....sure you might wanna hit the rich there, but when you do...you also hit the lower wealth classes..as that they are investing their retirement and it gets hit with those same taxes, that as you say...affect them worse than it does the wealthy.
IRAs, 401K, etc... With a little bit of thought and the even more favorable capital gains rates for lower income people, it's entirely possible. At my income level I'm doing nearly all Roth IRA.
The simplest solution, I think, would be to split income into 2 categories - I'll call them 'earned' and 'unearned'. Earned is wage income and such. Unearned is investment income - from what you own, not what you do. If you put short term trading gains into Earned, that's just a rule.
Anyways, have a standard exemption and tax table for each - and they are to be the same. So if you make $1M in a year, if it's ALL wages or if it's all investment income, you pay $x in taxes. If you make that same $1M, but it's $500k wages, $500k investment, then you pay $y, where $y is less than $x.
*IE not a criminal on the run.
I don't read AC A human right
Like insurance, shouldn't you pay more for the protection of your property if you have more property to protect? As such, shouldn't the wealthy be paying a larger share of their income to taxes to protect their larger share of the benefit of government protection?
Yes, that is what the word "percentage" means.
If you make more money, the same tax percentage results in a larger amount of tax.
10% of 1000 is 100
10% of 1000000 is 100000
See how that second number is bigger?
Not sure how writing an whole new OS or parts of an OS is aid, its not like they asked for keys, they asked for the builder to put in new doors in the house. Seems to go way beyond "aid" definition. But then, if the gov can force the public to buy private products, dont see why the gov cant force companies to build/alter products, law means nothing anymore.
It's time we acknowledge something. We encrypt these devices, as much to prevent unwanted and unwarranted government spying as to prevent mundane criminal exposure. Which raises the question, for the umpteenth time, why isn't unwarranted government spying criminal?
The contest between the citizen's rights to prevent unwarranted government spying and the government's persistent attempts to spy, or create a framework validating such spying, takes us back to the Middle Ages, Europe under various monarchies, and the very reason the United States was founded with a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and so forth. It's sad that the government and it's Three Letter Agencies have so profoundly lost their way that they seek to undermine the citizens they serve rather than uphold and support those citizens.
None of this would have been necessary if those Three Letter Agencies had not so profoundly violated trust and abused policy, law, and the Constitution. Due Process was good enough in the day the government respected it. Now that the TLA's have trashed their image and trust, they deserve the consequences.
Terrorism, crime and security have become an endless fountain of money, political cover and scope expansion for the security establishment. Where does accountability figure in? Why do they disrespect citizens so? How long must disreputable administration exist before these practices stop?
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
Actually this has been the worst part regarding discussing these people and their hatred of America.
Treason isn't really the correct term.
These people certainly have over-thrown the American government alright, but not through the use of force or violence.
In fact they took over by exploiting bugs in the system itself, which means treason isn't a proper description of their actions.
Terrorist isn't the correct term either, pretty much for the same reason.
Yes their actions terrify the fuck out of me, but they are not doing it through the use of violence.
In fact the harm they are causing is (mostly) harm allowed from within the system (IE the use of law enforcement to imprison people)
Obviously those in the government in favor of torture and other crimes DO fall under the terrorist label, but that is fairly limited (not saying it isn't bad or a problem, far from, but it doesn't apply to many law makers including these people)
So what term do we coin for these people?
Law-hackers? Legalese-kiddies? Just America-haters?
None of those sound to me as strong of a term as is needed for the damage and harm these people have done and are doing to so many millions of people.
But reusing other less apt terms just derails the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto stupid needless definition-nazi arguments.
Yes, they should pay a higher percentage. If you tried to get insurance on a $10 million versus a $10k estate, not only would the premium be higher, but the premium would increase in a more than linear fashion, because it is a greater liability/existential threat to the insurer should it have to pay up.
The effective tax rate of all taxes and fees is well below 50%, at least in the US.
I've had a marginal tax rate over 50%, in the US. You may not realize that beyond a certain income level (still well below the 1%) you start losing your deductions. With every dollar you earn, your deductions drop a few cents. This can become a10% or so effective marginal tax rate. The Obamacare tax adds another ~4% marginal tax rate. Add state taxes and your 28% nominal tax rate can pass 50%, without being in the 1%.
My solution was to move out of California. I make a bit less money, but it's not like I was keeping the extra. Yes, I'm free not to work but that doesn't fund the state!
Taxes should be seen as a way to fund needed government programs, and not as an instrument of social justice, as the two goals often pull in opposite directions.
Yes. The magic number starts at $100,000 and ends at $250,000, where the last of a big boat of deductions and schemes evaporate. You can't contribute to an IRA (well you can, but there's no tax benefit), your child deductions go away, education expense deductions stop happening etc. etc. On the other side is capital gains. If you can arrange to stash some of that money into investments returning capital gains, then you benefit enormously from low capital gains taxes. If you're earning millions, this should be easy. If you're earning $250k in a place where houses are expensive and local taxes are high, you might find you don't have much left over to stash away.
The super-exponential rise in the share of income through the 99th to 100th percentile income bracket can in part be attributed to capital gains tax being substantially lower than income tax. The higher your income, the larger the percentage of that income is from capital gains.
Taxes should be seen as a way to fund needed government programs, and not as an instrument of social justice, as the two goals often pull in opposite directions.
Define needed government programs, because one person's needed program is the next person's waste.
We must pay for defense, defense spending is a waste and drag on the economy.
We must pay for contraceptives, Planned Parenthood is an abomination.
ETC. ETC. ETC
What we really need to do is make sure that we raise enough money to pay for whatever we are doing. As a society we definitely can afford higher tax rates that we currently have. In the 50s and 60s our parents/grandparents had a much higher tax rate and built the Interstates, fought the cold war and funded the race to the moon. Today we are too cheap to raise the gas taxes to pay for the maintenance to those Interstates they built.
Interesting. Because several northern European nations have top marginal tax rates exceeding 50%, yet they seem like nicer places to live and raise a family.
>How may companies would issue a device they could not control?
A lot of equipment (phones in particular) are issued new to the employee- with the only emphasis being to set up a billing account & sync your email. Some IT departments remind everyone "Remember to update your phones when it prompts, oh and no gambling or pr0n on a work device- kthx".
A lot of telecom equipment is not scrutinized or standardized the same as company computers which may all be imaged the same way. And state government employees are not immune to this non-standardization, or to issuing a (telecom) device they cannot control.
You may seem surprised that this is not standard operating procedure for every department in the galaxy, but there are some departments that are JUST NOW getting on board, (with handhelds).
Higher tax rates don't necessarily mean higher government funding - the more you make, the more choice you have in how, where, and when you get paid. Funding benefits more from a growing economy, over time, in any case - we've never, under any tax structure, manged more than 20% of GDP as federal revenue for long. The difference between a 2% and 4% growth rate is a much larger factor over the decades.
Our problem with bridges and roads and other clearly legitimate government spending is that it's less than 20% of the federal budget, perhaps less than 10% depending on what you count. The money is there. Five or ten times the money is there. It's not a question of having the money.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Right. Or, put otherwise, do US citizens have the right to use unbreakable encryption? Does the government have the right to require that nothing can be kept secret from the government? Do citizens only have the right to privacy if they can keep a secret entirely themselves? (No other parties know it, no other parties created any of the technology used to keep it secret)
If the government can force a producer of a product that enables secrecy to break that secrecy, then no citizen can have secrecy unless they themselves are the sole keeper of their secret.
By the way, does the government have the right to keep secrets from the citizens?
from that piece - step 3 - guy buys a house.
uhhh if he's unemployed, he's not buying a house.
and it's not like they're receiving 75k in cash - some of those are education grants.
But hey, keep believing that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm sure that you built every facet of your multi-billion dollar operation.
As for insurance, if you buy a car that cost three times as much as I do, you would expect to pay three times the insurance, assume the other factors being the same. And yet, with taxes, at least in the US, it does not work that way.
The "taxes as insurance" analogy isn't a very good one—unless you mean "insurance" as in "protection racket", then it's fairly apt—but also consider this: if you can afford to lose the car, you don't need (comprehensive) insurance on it at all. You'll still need liability insurance, of course, but that's for a fixed amount and doesn't depend on the value of the vehicle (and if you're sufficiently wealthy you may be able to self-insure for liability as well).
If taxes were analogous to insurance then the rates would be regressive, not progressive. The wealthier you are the less protection you need, proportionally speaking. You have more to lose, but you can afford to lose more without serious hardship. The wealthy do not require proportionally greater levels of government services than the poor, and can easily afford to provide those services for themselves. The purpose of a progressive tax code is redistribution, not fairness.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The Constitution protects EVERYONE, not just "good people", but EVERYONE from unreasonable search and seizure.
It also allows EVERYONE to refuse to answer on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.
Your argument is absolutely, totally wrong.
The owner of the phone agrees with the search. If you are suspected of a crime, the police needs a warrant to search your home and your phone. If you left evidence at your workplace or on your workphone, they don't need evidence. They only need permission of your employer. Actually, I believe they don't even need that, because a search without permission or warrant only means any evidence against your employer cannot be used against them, but evidence against _you_ can be used. (If you threw a bloody knife that you used to kill your wife into your neighbour's garden, and the police searches that garden without a warrant and without permission of the owner, that search isn't violating _your_ rights so the bloody knife can be used as evidence against you. )
The person who doesn't want the evidence to be found is dead. Shot dead. Totally deserved, after killing over a dozen people. His rights cannot be violated anymore. The search for evidence on that phone is totally reasonable. Even without the permission of the owner, the police would have got a warrant. The right against self incrimination doesn't protect you. The police has the right to see the evidence, you have no right to hide it. Giving the police the passcode is only self incrimination if the police didn't actually know that the phone was yours, and having the passcode proves that it is indeed yours.
So your reasoning is totally, absolutely wrong. The reason why Apple shouldn't have to help the police is _that it isn't their phone_. Apple has no evidence in its hands. They are not involved in the crime in any way. It's like an FBI agent who needs to get to the court ordering you to drive him there in your car. And then politicians claiming that you support terrorists by telling the FBI agent to call a taxi.
The owner gave the FBI the permission to search the phone. The owner should have had the passcode then, but they don't. Tough luck. Should have looked better after the phones they own.
The purpose of a progressive tax code is redistribution, not fairness.
There is nothing inherent in progressive tax code that leads to redistribution. That is on the spending side of government, not the taxation side. Social programs are not part of the tax code, but instead, how a government uses the funds raised. If the US had a flat tax and still had welfare programs, would people argue that the only purpose of a flat tax is redistribution? No, of course not.
Taxation and how the funds are used are two totally separate issues.
If one attempts to build an encryption with a back door, that application will be torn apart by the entire hacking community to find it, and once found will become worthless! Same issues goes for any device that is encrypted. Second issue, encryption algorithms have been used and written about for a LONG time, witness the Enigma machine and Colossus computer that broke it. Any mathematician or programmer worth his salt can program a computer with any of hundreds of algorithms.
ISIS, ISIL, Dash can have an encryption program written and you know it will NOT have any back door. Once written in can be passed about to any operative they desire. So much for the terrorist issue.
So encryption was once classified as munitions, but while personal firearms never seem to get much regulation, strong encryption got a ban.
Only strong (at the time) encryption was regulated as you describe. Netscape (and WinNT4, and a bunch of other software) with weak encryption was essentially unregulated. Still a misguided policy, stupid even, but not quite as bad as what you wrote.
Fully automatic civilian firearms were all but completely outlawed by federal legislation in 1934. Before that, one could order a Thompson submachinegun through the Sears Catalog, and the country wasn't subjected to notable misuse of Sears-ordered firearms until the government tried to take away everyone's booze. Additional legislative restrictions on such firearms were added in later years, particularly 1986. The US government has been working toward ever greater restrictions on civilian firearms almost since its inception. Almost none of those restrictions have been relaxed, whereas strong encryption is essentially unrestricted since 1992, as you noted. So, tell us exactly how firearms in US history are somehow less regulated than encryption?
- T
> I know a billionaire who has fed 10,000 Haitian children per day since the earthquake. What have you done lately?
I worked overtime for a billionaire who pays me shit.
s, "can you legally make an unbreakable lock"
Darn phone. Yes, long before computers this was answered with yes. It is called a pyrotechnic safe.
The purpose of a progressive tax code is redistribution, not fairness.
There is nothing inherent in progressive tax code that leads to redistribution. That is on the spending side of government, not the taxation side.
Redistribution depends on both taxation and spending, specifically whether the difference between the amount you pay in taxes and the amount you benefit from the spending is correlated with wealth and/or income. I had already argued that the increased taxes under a progressive tax policy are not balanced by an increase in benefits, which leaves as the only other option a situation where the difference is redistributed to others who pay less in taxes and yet benefit more from the spending.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
so by completely redefining slavery you try to defend your support of slavery as the rest of the world understands it. strange move, there.
The guy thinks it's fair when he is told they both get to keep an extra 5% of their salary.
For naive definitions of "fair" which do not take into account the marginal utility of a dollar.
That is assuming that the excess isn't used for other purposes, say, research, infrastructure, military, new power sources, space, or whatever. There are other alternatives besides wealth redistribution.
Also one is always allowed an appeal. Apple is not required to comply without question and is almost certainly going to provide a response to the judge within the time allowed by the judge. Apple is not thumbing it's nose at the courts and it has not violated any laws on this account or ignored any warrants. Yet so many politicians are up in arms that Apple is not responding immediately, some saying that Apple has to comply because "it's the law". More politicians who just don't seem to understand what the law really is, which should logically make them ineligible for the office they are seeking.
Bernard Madoff would disagree.
Nope. It also can be justified if you believe that it leads to a better more efficient society which is actually supported by history in the US. There is no need for "social justice." Only practicality. Of course this is all hypothetical as social security and medical taxes make the system regressive. Those are usually left out of the analysis.
Yep there sure is. For starters, billionaire doesn't say shit about how much someone earns. Likewise, the amount someone earns doesn't say shit about how much they are worth.
You do realize that you pay taxes on what you earn and generally not on what you saved or accumulated right?
Or more likely the government did not purchase the iPhone or hire the terrorist.
It is just a likely as the federal government being behind 9/11.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
It is funny that the conservatives say they are for smaller government and yet they are supporters of bills that take away rights.
Perhaps both progressives and conservatives are not big/small government but are for policies that I think the government should do.
The Fourth is not being applied to the phone seizure. It is being applied to the "seizure" of services (being forced to write code). This is covered under the "papers & effects" definition. In essence, the government can not "seize" Apple's services.
Making a set of people with such a huge income disparity just shows your bias.
The truly wealthy pay a small amount of the taxes.
Moron.
You talking about Gates? He has done so much damage to the world he will never make up for it,even if he lives 10000 years.
A flat tax is regressive as hell.
Two family with 4 people in each of them.
Family A makes $30,000
Family B makes $10,000,000
Which one of those is not going to feel the flat tax in any meaningful way and which one will feel a lot of pain.
Numbnuts
You must be okay with no private roads, no public fire or police, no military, no regulations and enforcement on pollution,etc.
You are advocating anarchy, which makes you the stupidest motherfucker in the history of the world.
Create a master key, keep it to yourself. We won't ask you to give it to us, we promise. We don't care how you do it, we promise. It's only this once, we promise.
But whatever it takes, you go ahead and do it.
As a bonus, you will perform this work using people and equipment you get to pay for all by yourself. I'm sure it will be no burden at all and you should be ready to pay these expenses now because you didn't have the foresight to compromise all your products proactively.
And of course we'll never use this a precedent to force you do to this for all other products you make, and we'll not be forcing all the other companies to do likewise. ... we promise.
It's such a simple request... and besides "Teh Terrorestors!"
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yeah, except that the working poor (read: exploited proletariat) do almost ALL the real work, planting and harvesting food, manufacturing goods, digging ditches. They hand over most of that value to the owners, so in other words, without the poor there would BE no rich people. Those corporate slimeballs and wall street wheeler dealers would have to get out there in the hot sun and pick strawberries instead of having them dipped in chocolate at Godiva.
Stick THAT in your arrogant greed-pipe and smoke it.