Slashdot Mirror
Carole Adams, Mom Who Lost Son In San Bernardino Shooting, Sides With Apple (washingtontimes.com)
HughPickens.com writes: The Washington Times reports that Carole Adams, the mother of Robert Adams -- a 40-year-old environmental health specialist who was shot dead in the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife in December -- is siding with Apple in its battle to protect consumer's privacy rights. Adams says she stands by Apple's decision to fight a federal court order to create software that would allow federal authorities to access the shooter's password-blocked iPhone. She understands the FBI's need to search Farook's phone, but says it has to be done without putting others at risk. "This is what separates us from communism, isn't it? The fact we have the right to privacy," she told the New York Post. "I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans. This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a Constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote."
You are right. We are in a communist nation already.
The constitution does not grant people rights; it grants the federal government rights. Anything not explicitly disallowed by the constitution (plus each state's constitution) is a right of the people. The constitution does not give the federal government the right to inhibit to privacy, therefor you have the right to it.
The beauty of the constitution is that is is so simple-minded. The first 3 words of the document are "We the people". "We the people" do hereby form a government and grant it the following explicit functions and duties. And just to make sure, there were 12 original Bill of Rights just to put an exclamation point on the fact that the people are the ones with the power and not the government. In fact, the current 10th amendment spells it out explicitly, that the powers not explicitly enumerated are reserved for the states, or the people.
So yes, the grandparent poster is 100% correct.
Using your logic, rights come from the government. This is sadly the biggest threat to our country - people like you who are un-educated or indoctrinated by a socialist government. If that's the kind of philosophy you want to live under, please go to Cuba, Venezuela, China, Italy, Spain, former USSR, and so on. In the USA, the government DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. Rights are AUTOMATICALLY YOURS. What he said is 200% correct. The government can restrict some things if the Constitution ALLOWS the government to do so. That's why whenever you go to court, a lawyer will question the "authority" of something. If the government doesn't have the "authority" to do something, then it is illegal. This is why they are so afraid of Edward Snowden. They know they are violating the Constitution so they have to "classify" things in order to hide their illegal activities.
The term you used: "reasonable" is very nebulous and relativistic. This is the same relativistic argument that fascist, socialist (e.g. Nazis = National Socialism), communist governments use to enact incremental change. Think of all the WWII vets who are disgusted at what kids your age are willing to put up with in terms of governmental overreach.
Incidentally, it is not the job of the government to protect you domestically. That is your job (hence the 2nd ammendment). The government is supposed to protect the country (the people and land) using the military. This is why the civilian police cannot be prosecuted for "not protecting you" as has been re-clarified by several court cases where people tried to sue the police for not protecting them. Basically, the court said that protecting you is not the job of the police. The police are not there to jump on the grenade for you - only the military is.
The Matrix comes to mind.... you sound like someone who is so hopelessly lost in your misunderstanding of the world you have gained through careful and deliberate social programming from corporations (MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc.) and the government (public education) that it would fundamentally destroy you to know what our country is really about.
Have a read about the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.
Wikipedia: Ninth Amendment
Main article: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[78]
The Ninth Amendment clarifies that the specific individual rights stated in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights, does not constitute an explicit and exhaustive listing of all individual rights possessed by the people, and cannot be used by the federal government to increase its powers in areas not stated.
There are lots of vague deductions, but the Constitution is perfectly clear: it ensures the right of people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects. It is reasonable to suggest that transmitting data over the internet, trusting in its care to someone else, relieves one of that security, but it is not reasonable whatsoever to suggest that the person or entity you are entrusting it to does not also have the right to be secure in their papers and effects.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter how we define "privacy" culturally, because there is basically no definition under which you could argue that the data on your smartphone is not part of one of those four categories. It only begins to get interesting when you reach the point where someone has encrypted data, is served a valid warrant, and refuses to decrypt it.
We had a similar thing here in Canada. The government, a conservative authoritarian law, order and national security type, kept trying to push through spying laws, in particular forcing ISPs to keep all kinds of data and give it to the government for the asking, because you know, getting a search warrant is too much hassle.
They started with the think of the children line and got a lot of push back when they called everyone child molesters, then tried the terrorist angle and still got enough push back to back down. Finally a 13 year old girl committed suicide due to online bullying and they managed to push through their law. The mother was on TV crying about as horrible as it was to lose her daughter, she did not want such an invasive law passed.
It was quite uplifting to see a mother who lost her young daughter still completely supporting our right to privacy.
Unluckily it also showed that the government can just keep trying to pass bad laws and the people will get tired of fighting it and eventually they'll succeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I love it when people defend our current health care system. The abomination that is our current system is utterly indefensible. If we had set out to create such a fucked up system we could not have achieved it. The levels of stupidity, inefficiency, and insanity which are present in every single facet of our health care system boggle the fucking mind. There is no one left in America who does not know someone personally who is going/has gone bankrupt due to medical bills. So defending this system when so many people are suffering under it is the absolute height of willful ignorance. But then again willful ignorance is the hallmark of our age. There are no people left in America who are "ignorant" about such things. Which is why arguing with people about whether global warming/climate change is real or man-made is so futile. Americans have become so cynical that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about any so-called truth.
I guess what kills me the most is not that so many Americans are willfully ignorant about so damned much, for frankly the "truth" is about as relevant as my asshole, but that willful ignorance absolves one of any culpability for any basic level of personal honesty or integrity. Now of course willful ignorance is almost synonymous with "opinion", and everyones got one right? If I meet someone who face to face lies to me about shit they know is true they simply will never get to know me, their loss. I don't argue with them, not anymore, they don't respect themselves enough to be worth it. We may not agree with one another on suggested solutions(single-payer vs. x number of alternatives), but defending what we currently have ?really? I won't engage in that kind of intellectual dishonesty, and you can call it an opinion, but we know what it is. Maybe someday you'll join us, looking forward to getting to know you.
But having said all that, one of the greatest freedoms is the freedom to be full of shit. And I am mighty glad that we have that freedom, for if it were not for the right to be full of shit, there would be remarkably little humor in the world and we would be poorer for it. So instead of walking around with hatred towards my fellow Americans, most of the time, I succeed in realizing that there is just a very fashionable level of bullshit which has become normative, and I allow humor to overcome my anger and simply laugh at that for which it is-bullshit.