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."
It's a curious thing, but the U.S. Constitution is rather vague about a "right to privacy." There is no explicit right to privacy to be found anywhere in the Constitution or amendments. However, there's a long judicial history of interpretations and precedents that, in aggregate, creates something like a right to privacy. But, again, it is an implied right, not an explicit right, which is partly why we found ourselves in the present situation. A fun way to get a bunch of first-year law students in a twist is to propose a privacy amendment for the Constitution, then have them argue about what it actually means.
Would it make much difference? Could the things that Snowden revealed have taken place if an explicit privacy amendment had existed? (Many here would argue that the 4th amendment ought to have prevented it, so what good would another amendment do?) Would the FBI have much of an argument against Apple if such an amendment existed? Could Google do what it does and not run afoul of violating citizens' privacy rights, a la the "right to be forgotten" rulings in Europe? Could Roe v. Wade, which hinged heavily on an implied right to privacy, ever be overturned?
I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans.
We're now in a world where a for-profit corporation (two, if you count Google) is directly battling the US Government to protect human rights. I'm don't know if there's even a term to describe this political/societal situation.
I worked in government (in a very relevant position to this argument).
The USG is significantly more intrusive and oppressive than the Stasi. You just haven't been exposed to it because they are very good and very evolved in their ways. They use Orwellian doublespeak to say they are "protecting the kids" and "defending your rights" and "stopping terrorists". Ever heard of the Constitution Free Zones? What about the Patriot Act? Ever seen a no-knock raid done for the 'war on drugs'? Ever heard of civil forfeiture? What about everything Edward Snowden whistleblew? The TSA grabbing your junk? The TSA or DHS searching your car and you at airports without a warrant? The IRS being used against conservative 501c3 organizations (and even genuine liberal ones too!). etc...
I don't think we can say that history shows communism leads to poverty. Most nations that attempt communism are already poor and rarely get any worse. The USSR actually became less poor under communism than it had been under capitalism, and has again struggled to develop post-communism. The best case example would be East Germany, but even they started in poverty after WWII and we can't prove they'd have developed as fast as West Germany with capitalism if both halves were left to their own devices. Maybe you could make a case out of China, but that's more about Mao's personal mistakes.
Orwellian government control, on the other hand, does appear to be a near-universal result -- presumably because the wealthy won't give up their property voluntarily and thus an oppressive government enforcement system is necessary.
This space intentionally left blank