Slashdot Mirror


New Legislation Would Ban US Government From Purchasing Apple Products (arstechnica.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Cyrus Farivar reports at ArsTechnica that Congressman David Jolly has introduced the "No Taxpayer Support for Apple Act," a bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," said Jolly, who announced in 2015 that he's running for Senate, joining the crowded GOP primary field to replace Sen. Marco Rubio. "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today." Jolly's bill echoes a call from Donald Trump last month to boycott Apple until it agrees to assist the FBI. Not to fear, GovTrack gives Jolly's bill a 1% chance of being enacted.

296 comments

  1. Best Ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when the BBC banned Relax on the radio/TV. It was the best ever for those guys.

    1. Re:Best Ever! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Don't do it!

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Best Ever! by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      Don't do it!

      ...frig. Thanks for the annoying earworm just before bedtime! >:(

      I can see why it was banned...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  2. Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have an ever better reason the Government should be banned from buying Apple (or Microsoft): It ain't Open. You are "buying" a walled garden full of security holes and endless paid upgrades. The Government should only be purchasing truly Open systems.

    1. Re:Even better reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm all for open systems, but there's a slight problem here: this is mainly about smartphones, not PCs, and there aren't exactly a lot of open options here.

      Of course, you would think that with the size of the US Government, they could work out a deal with Samsung or one of the Android phone makers to supply bare phones which could then be flashed with a government-made version of Android or AOSP, similar to CyanogenMod. But by the same token, the government could certainly do this for their PCs too, making their own custom Linux distro.

      But instead, the Government is doubling down on crippled, closed, proprietary platforms that the Government has almost zero control over: Windows 10 on PCs/laptops and Apple iPhones.

      And it's not like other countries' governments are doing much better (though they wouldn't have the economies of scale the USG has, except maybe China). At best, we're seeing some European municipalities adopting Linux but that's about it.

    2. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what do you suggest that isn't walled, full of security holes, and endless paid upgrades? Two tin cans and some string? Smoke signals? Telegram?

    3. Re:Even better reason by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'd go with the string. It appears to be harder to tap, whereas the others travel *through the ether* in plain view of others.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Even better reason by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Android is more or less open.

      IMHO, for those that think along these lines, why not have the US government contract out the design and build of their own Smart Phone. That way, they can really tell everyone where to go. And with Android, they could probably do it fairly easily.

      FYI, I was half expecting the guy to be a (D), but noticed he was an (R). Which is why I I would never vote for anyone in either party.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Even better reason by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Two Cans and a string has holes it it. In fact, it almost requires holes ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Except that you're clearly unaware of what Apple has done for China or you wouldn't be making that claim. China has access to source code so they have an inside track on what security holes may exist. That is not what the U.S. government is asking for. Just because you can view the source code for Truecrypt doesn't mean that it is insecure.

    7. Re:Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Do you think if the US Government mandated Open systems there wouldn't be a long line of manufacturers breaking down the door to provide these Open systems?

    8. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The federal government of the United States (along with many state and municipal government bodies) is heavily populated by decision makers who firmly believe (or at least purport to believe) that systems built entirely on open standards are highly undesirable (reference: many years of firsthand interactions with federal civilian, military, and law enforcement organizations, plus related bodies in many states, plus associated private sector technology vendors/providers). Assuming the possibility for this behavioral trend to change in favor of truly open systems, meaning IP/patent/licensing/etc unencumbered architectures carrying broad approval from respected international technical and cryptographic security standards bodies and leaders, can you provide a suggested list of vendors which are fully prepared to take advantage of these bid opportunities? Please also provide guidance on recommended structural changes for ensuring transparent and objective assessment of said vendor offerings versus competing closed platform offerings from other vendors, with particular attention to any measures for ensuring perpetual, consistent, and fully auditable direct accountability on the part of government decision makers regarding all functional and security criteria. Thank you for your valued assistance in getting these issues cleared up. -PCP

    9. Re:Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Uh, Linux? FreeBSD? There are plenty of Open Systems out there.

    10. Re: Even better reason by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The one intelligent thing out of this clown's mouth and you guys mod him down?? WTF?!

    11. Re: Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Its the most intelligent thing I have said in months and it gets modded down???

    12. Re: Even better reason by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      But instead, the Government is doubling down on crippled, closed, proprietary platforms that the Government has almost zero control over

      Pray tell, how else are we to enjoy hidden features such as the ability to strand naval vessels at sea with the age-old (yet apparently still highly-effective) Blue Screen of Death? :)

    13. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I think if the US Government mandated Open systems there would be a long line of manufactures filing lawsuits to get that mandate overturned.

    14. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which are useless for actually getting work done.

    15. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might want to say as representing an unofficial "NSA spook" (as in I toured through their building once or twice) that the NSA uses a whole lot of Linux boxes. Most of the rest of the government doesn't.

    16. Re:Even better reason by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Let the government (any government) design a smart phone and it'll probably end up sucking horribly at $3000 a unit. And instead of keeping up with modern technology, they will take at least 5 years to come up with the next model which will then be 3 years behind.

      Nothing wrong with government buying closed stuff like Apple as long as you can easily migrate away from it if necessary. I've worked with corporate ecosystems that accommodated a mix of Android, Windows and iOS phones very well, and dropping one in favour of tbe other could be done overnight. That is an advantage of having a BYOD scheme: from the get-go you are more or less forced to cater to different platforms. I would rather see the govt focus on rolling out open data and document standards, because decades of legacy docs are hard to migrate.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    17. Re:Even better reason by scarboni888 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know that resorting to the use of the word 'fuck' is a signal to your enemies that you've given up, right?

    18. Re:Even better reason by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "You are "buying" a walled garden full of security holes and endless paid upgrades"

      Let me see if I got this. The government should boycott Apple because it's too secure for the FBI to break into. At the same time, Apple is too full of security holes for said government to trust it. Is this the kind of logic that politicians use?

    19. Re:Even better reason by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      1-There are documented examples of the government doing things on time and under budget. The many state wide bans on funding of municipal WIFI proves that. 2-Mandating open standards so we can easily drop a supplier is an excellent idea. I think we should start with the Microsoft Doc format.

    20. Re: Even better reason by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I might want to say as representing an unofficial "NSA spook" (as in I toured through their building once or twice) that the NSA uses a whole lot of Linux boxes. Most of the rest of the government doesn't.

      Actually, I have seen the same thing at JPL.

    21. Re: Even better reason by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      So maybe a safe conlcusion would be this: 1. Government nerds use Linux. 2. Government beaurucrats and management use Windows. 3. Elected and appointed officials all use Apple.

    22. Re:Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah except a majority of computing devices run on Linux and FreeBSD now. So I guess you are wrong.

    23. Re:Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't secure. There are one line exploits for root for OSX for Gods sake!

    24. Re:Even better reason by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. They would be pigs lining up to feed from the trough. No company turns down US governement contracts.

    25. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, I was half expecting the guy to be a (D), but noticed he was an (R). Which is why I I would never vote for anyone in either party.

      Interesting. I associate the type of brainless rhetoric exhibited by Mr Jolly with (R). (D) brainless rhetoric is usually more along the lines of "Think of the children/minority/underdog".

      Anyway, regardless of which Party, it's a dumb idea. It shows once again that Congress has far more than its fair share of idiots. My suggestion is that we should take note of such idiocy & not vote for that person again. Seriously, even if you have to vote for someone-from-that-other-party ... they're not really that far away from each other, despite their protestations to the contrary. Over time we may evolve a better Congress (I only say "may" as this the USA & we are #1 in idiots, along with so many other things.)

      (BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm an Apple fanboi ... nope, only product of theirs I ever purchased as an ipod ~ 10 years ago. But I am a nerd & do love technology.)

    26. Re: Even better reason by lucm · · Score: 1

      Can't judge the value of an orator by the size of his audience. Otherwise it would imply that Apple makes the best mobile devices and that McDonalds makes the best breakfast food.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    27. Re: Even better reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well, they did make SELinux for a reason after all: they wanted the extra security capabilities for their internal use. But it does seem pretty stupid that a government competent enough to make something as technically sophisticated as SELinux can't be bothered to actually use it on all their PCs so that government operations aren't subject to the whims of a for-profit multinational corporation or vulnerable to the security shortcomings in that commercial OS.

    28. Re:Even better reason by meglon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you're fucking wrong.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    29. Re:Even better reason by jxander · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But ... the reason for this hall of fame hissy fit is that the phone is *too* secure. They can't break into it, so they're gonna show apple who's boss and stop buying their stuff

      When really, this is the exact opposite of the correct response. If the iPhone is so secure that the FBI is having to run through all this legal crap to even get an attempt at breaking in (which still might fail) the gubmint should be switching to iPhones across the board.

      --
      This signature is false.
    30. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;df no mention of bsods but lots of physical security mentions and long shots about getting infected with malware..

    31. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im sure its more about compatibilty with ofice products and retraining the workforce

    32. Re: Even better reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They're going to have to be retrained to use Windows 10. Switching them to Linux/KDE from their current Windows 7 would be an easier transition than that. And with a custom distro, they could make KDE look and work almost just like Win7.

    33. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but other companies have Windows source code.

      Just because it's not open doesn't mean specific parties are unable to. Just have to pay a little bit.

    34. Re:Even better reason by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      I have an ever better reason the Government should be banned from buying Apple (or Microsoft): It ain't Open. You are "buying" a walled garden full of security holes and endless paid upgrades. The Government should only be purchasing truly Open systems.

      Walled garden? From the point of view of someone buying a large number of devices, this is a positive, not a negative.
      Security holes? It's the lack of security holes that has lead us to this situation.
      Paid upgrades? Every new version of iOS is free of charge. Now, tell me - how many Android phones have been released that have never seen an upgrade released for them?

    35. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Apple and this is making me want to switch to an iPhone. Jolly is a little nobody with delisions of relevance and I can't wait to vote that pandering idiot out of office.

    36. Re: Even better reason by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Linux doesn't run all the other Windows only software that they use. Do you think the uptake on the desktop of Linux, something that costs nothing and has been around for 2 decades, would be so low if it was a just drop in replacement?

    37. Re:Even better reason by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah, it's full of security holes, just not the ones that will let the gov't in.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    38. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they are useless for getting real work done.

      You are a fucking moron.

    39. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the FBI can't break into it. The NSA for example probably only does not want to, and criminals probably won't work for the FBI.
      More importantly though: The FBI wants to break into a device that is under their control, but locked and not in use and they want to get in 100% reliably without risk of it being wiped.
      Criminals want to get into random, in use phones, and don't care (much) what breaks in the process or if it has a 99% failure rate.
      So it is entirely possible to at the same time be "too secure for the FBI" and to be insecure.
      Not that I think that iPhones are particularly insecure though.

    40. Re: Even better reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Linux hasn't had good uptake because of non-existent marketing, and because of applications.

      However, it doesn't matter if Linux doesn't run the applications when you're risking national security by running a closed-source OS that is known to send private data back to MS, and does who-knows-what-else. They don't give the US government the source code to Windows. (They probably make available some source code they claim is the full and complete source.)

      Furthermore, a lot of Windows applications can be run under WINE, sometimes even better than on Windows. This would work even better if the USG dumped a bunch of money on CodeWeavers to improve WINE further. A lot of people have been complaining that Windows 10 breaks some of their applications. How is the USG going to handle it when their old apps don't work on the new OS?

    41. Re:Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android was more or less open. Recent iterations have been increasingly tending toward "less open". More and more basic functionality is being moved into Google's closed source components.

    42. Re: Even better reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Other companies have some source code that MS claims is the Windows source code. If they haven't actually compiled that code and produced a binary-identical version of Windows, then it's not. MS does *not* provide the full build system or all the source code that goes into Windows.

    43. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most (if not all) of the routers your post travelled on are based off open source linux or unix. Both open and closed software options could be the right choice for a particular use. I do not understand this blind hate that you spead.

    44. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux hasn't had good uptake because of non-existent marketing, and because of applications.

      I have been using GNU/Linux exclusively since 2012 and about 90% of the time between 1999 and 2012. The only time I have used Microsoft Windows since 2000 has been when mandated by an employer or client. Even in those Microsoft Windows on the desktop organisations I tended to use PuTTY to access their internal *nix servers to do my actual work.

    45. Re:Even better reason by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      1-There are documented examples of the government doing things on time and under budget.

      Or via crown corporation. Canada has used crown corporations which are owned by the government yet are fully autonomous, and if they were inefficient, would have been dominated by the public sector several times over.

      I think we should start with the Microsoft Doc format.

      Microsoft has already depreciated that in 2007, and shift over to .docx (zipped XML files), a close-enough variation of the ECMA-376 specification.

    46. Re: Even better reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Endless upgrades to pay for? Clearly you are full of ignorance as I have had dozens of improvements adding all sorts of features I like and I pay NADA for any of it...if you don't like the idea of a closed system, fine by me. I do not however feel impressed by ignorance...

    47. Re:Even better reason by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Golly. It worked with air traffic control software.

      Some special-purpose government computerized system -- perhaps air traffic control, perhaps military weapons system, perhaps research sonar or some such, I forget -- is so old it runs software under an emulator for the old hardware, because the old hardware became unavailable. That much I am certain about.

      What I'm only vaguely recalling, which may not be right, is that the replacement hardware also became obsolete, so they're running a second emulator on a second type of replacement hardware. Surely that can't be true.

      Back to air traffic control. They're finally getting to where they can start slowly phasing in their new system. They're being cautious. Which is good, because there were some Murphy's Law problems during the parallel-production roll-out for one zone, as one would expect. That was a couple years ago.

      Time for me to see what the Internet has to say about it, lately. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=air.t...

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  3. As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I have to admit, this is totally lame..

    Why are we paying people to ponder such things??

    WTF

  4. Thats right they are exercising their rights by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    We should ban them.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  5. Tantrums by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency. How much tax payer money was just wasted on drafting this piece of worthless paper? I fully realize how fed up and cynical I have become.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Tantrums by twotacocombo · · Score: 2

      I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency.

      I really wish people this empty-headed never got voted into office in the first place. It's much easier to not let them in than it is to kick them out.

    2. Re:Tantrums by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency.

      It will have to get thousands of times worse. Look what people are putting up with in Venezuela and so many other places. Resistance against tyranny is at an all time low, and general antipathy is at an all time high.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't cynicism to recognize which politicians are failing to represent the interests of the people. That is just objectivity. They like to call it cynicism to demonize it and shame you for failing to just put up with it and love them anyway.

      "The politics of hope" is a nice phrase that makes it sound noble to continue believing that the current crop of politicians are trying to do right by you, when in reality they are cheating you at every turn.

      But keep hoping, citizen!

    4. Re:Tantrums by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency.

      The sad thing is this idiot is doing this to get booted IN to office (Rubio's FL Senate seat). Even sadder is that it might actually help.

    5. Re:Tantrums by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Who f... cares? This bill has 1% chance to be enacted. It shouldn't even discussed on /. for what it worth.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    6. Re:Tantrums by Archfeld · · Score: 0

      I agree, this so-called bill is a grandstanding POS of the face of it and very likely not legal. Politicians who waste everyone's time and money putting forth legislation that a layman can tell is not legal, should be found guilty of malfeasance https://www.google.com/#q=malf... at the very least, and if the cost is high enough a greater felony. These people are supposedly professionals and very likely a lawyer so their understanding should be greater than the average person, not less like they seem to demonstrate on a regular basis.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    7. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He defeated Alex Sink(D) despite her spending 4x as much as him. Sink also lives 30 miles from his district, not sure if that mattered to voters.

      Because of redistricting, Jolly decided he can't possibly win reelection in his district. Instead of trying to keep his seat in the House he is now going to run for Senate in Florida. Remember, this is where the RNC attempted through redistricting to keep their seats safe (fought in legal battles).

      So far Jolly has shown more money doesn't win elections, and ability to gerrymander redistricting doesn't seem to help the party in power either. Two well repeated myths about elections he has proven wrong in his specific case. Before this the only other thing I can remember him doing is being one of the first to denounce Trump loudly and no one caring.

      Just giving you a brief history of him. He will not be in the House next year, so you sort of will get your wish. Not sure of his chances for Senate.

    8. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the society we get when almost 50% of the people do not VOTE.

      When 'feelings' Trump facts and ideas like a mile high tidal wave.

    9. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this Floridiot any different from a 4yo throwing a tantrum because s/he isn't getting his/her way?

    10. Re: Tantrums by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Maybe Tim should suggest his users in Florida boycott David Jolly.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, Jolly.

      The good thing is that he can be out of office altogether. He won't have my vote for senator.

      Just today I voted for Marco Rubio in the primary. Stump Trump!

    12. Re:Tantrums by lucm · · Score: 1

      The purpose of that guy is not to be cost-effective, it's to convey the wishes of the population and nudge legislation accordingly. He's doing his job.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    13. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for term limits in the House and Senate.

    14. Re:Tantrums by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      He may be too young to really remember 9/11. What I remember is that congress jumped and did exactly everything the government asked for and we ended up going to war with two countries that we still haven't managed to extricate ourselves from, hundreds of thousands of people are dead, terrorism is now rampant primarily due to US actions, we have many failed states in its wake, and plenty of politicians will readily admit that they made a mistake when authorizing military action. So now we have a dumb congressman asking us to again blindly obey?

    15. Re:Tantrums by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      They lack skills for the real world though. "I'm sorry David, you just don't seem to be cut out for a career here at Dairy Queen. Have you considered make a moving to politics?"

    16. Re:Tantrums by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just yesterday I was playing FF14, doing a bit of crafting, and had just a 1% chance of my craft turning out to be high quality.

      And it happened.

      See, 1% is indeed a very small chance - but it is still a chance, and therein lies the problem.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    17. Re: Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He beat an uninspiring party hack candidate who wasn't very popular in the first place, mostly by being placed to fill a tiny part of a vacant position so he was the 'incumbent'.

      You said gerrymandering doesn't work, but obviously it did. Something made more obvious by him not being re-electable in his now more fairly drawn district.

      Money matters less when people don't like you very much outside of your rabid fan base. Something Donald and Hillary seem to have yet to learn too...

    18. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much tax payer money was just wasted on drafting this piece of worthless paper?

      None. They are all salaried so either they are writing stuff like this or doing nothing, either way they get paid the same. Now if you are saying they could have been doing something useful....I think you over estimate their capabilities.

    19. Re:Tantrums by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency. How much tax payer money was just wasted on drafting this piece of worthless paper? I fully realize how fed up and cynical I have become.

      The worst part is they *cant* pass this law. Its straight up unconstitutional. Section 9 of the constitution straight up forbids pasing bills of atainder (A law targetting a specific individual and declaring them guilty) or retrospective laws. This would last 5 minutes in court before being turfed out without even a hearing.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    20. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they had the backing of 90% of the US population, everyone was pissed and wanted something done.

    21. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish people this empty-headed never got voted into office in the first place.

      Well, it seems like for POTUS this time, the major options are:
              - empty-headed
              - wrong-headed
              - evil

      I wouldn't strike empty-headed from this list so quickly.

    22. Re:Tantrums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One case of gerrymandering that didn't work proves nothing. Texas proved that it works 99.9% of the time.

  6. Bill of Attainder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.

    1. Re:Bill of Attainder by fyngyrz · · Score: 0

      That's what the government uses civil law for. Well, that and implementing ex post facto punishment. Plenty of that going around.

      Not that I have any confidence a no-buy-from-Apple bill is likely to pass anyway. Apple puts a lot of money in politician's pockets, both directly and indirectly. They're positioned at the control end of the system, not the controlled end. Mr. Political Hopeful just hasn't figured it out yet.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Bill of Attainder by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.

      From Google:

      at-tain-der (noun historical) the forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence of death for treason or felony.

      I understand the incredulous response to this proposed legislation, but calling it a bill of attainder is a gross exaggeration.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Bill of Attainder by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think a "bill of attainder" has a different legal definition, though.

    4. Re:Bill of Attainder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand it, bill of attainder is a law that targets a person or group by declaring them guilty of a crime along with some punishment. It was abused by the British Monarchy prior to the Revolutionary War, and resulted in a Constitutional ban on all such laws. Article I, section 9, clause 3:

      No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

      The last time I heard the term "bill of attander" in the news was the Palm Sunday Compromise ten years ago, when supposed state-rights Republicans rushed a bill through Congress to tear a case out of state court and move it into Federal court-- specifically to address a single individual (and simultaneously pander to the same base who today have largely become Trumpkins). This was about a fight between parents who wanted to pull the plug on their daughter in a coma (in accordance with her wishes) vs. rando evangelicals who wanted to keep her alive, because Jesus.

      The big news at the time was that this amounted to a bill of attainder, which is when I was like "what the heck is that"...

      Turns out you can't write laws to punish individuals or groups directly... which is why so many laws are written by lobbyists to narrowly describe situations/scenarios/qualities that happen to affect only one group.

    5. Re:Bill of Attainder by whoever57 · · Score: 0

      I understand the incredulous response to this proposed legislation, but calling it a bill of attainder is a gross exaggeration.

      No it's not a gross exaggeration

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Bill of Attainder by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      The bill proposes a boycott of Apple by the government. That's not the same as a seizure of Apple's assets, or a denial of their rights.

      I want to be clear: I think this bill is wrong, and I hope it will be defeated. But it is not a bill of attainder.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re:Bill of Attainder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From Google:

      at-tain-der (noun historical) the forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence of death for treason or felony.

      I understand the incredulous response to this proposed legislation, but calling it a bill of attainder is a gross exaggeration.

      It's the original English definition. Meanings often evolve.

      In the US, the definition has been extended to mean: "an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial" (Wikipedia)

      For examples, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Cases_before_the_U.S._Supreme_Court (particularly the fourth paragraph: "The Court changed its 'bill of attainder test' in 1946. In United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court confronted a federal law that named three people as subversive and excluded them from federal employment. Previously, the Court had held that lack of judicial trial and the narrow way in which the law rationally achieved its goals were the only tests of a bill of attainder. But the Lovett Court said that a bill of attainder 1) Specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) Imposed punishment; and 3) Did so without benefit of judicial trial. As all three prongs of the bill of attainder test were met in Lovett, the court held that a congressional statute that bars particular individuals from government employment qualifies as punishment prohibited by the bill of attainder clause").

      It would precisely be a bill of attainder. There is no exaggeration here.

      This congressman obviously knows this. It's mostly just PR for him, the FBI, and others around them. Of course, it's actually criminal.

    8. Re:Bill of Attainder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American government has not cared about the constitution for some time.

    9. Re:Bill of Attainder by Holi · · Score: 4, Informative

      from google:

      A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    10. Re:Bill of Attainder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is going to a locksmith and demanding they give you copies of the keys to everybody's houses; after that throwing a hissy fit at the locksmith is par for the course.

    11. Re:Bill of Attainder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whew. For a minute there I thought it was a DnD term, and I was wondering if I was supposed to remember the AC of a bill of attainder.

    12. Re:Bill of Attainder by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So I have to ask. Are all the purchase made in America laws that direct government to prioritize US goods in their purchasing requirements a bill of atainder also? How would this be different from existing laws that say you can only purchase supplies through approved vendors?

      I'm thinking congress is well within constitution grounds to direct how money it appropriates is spent.

    13. Re:Bill of Attainder by lucm · · Score: 1

      The problem is, if they were to start a petition on change.org instead it wouldn't work because people who sign that kind of petition are mostly Apple customers and cognitive dissonance prevents them from blaming Apple no matter what. Same reason why Apple can have one of the worst ecological track record in manufacturing without the greeners complaining.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    14. Re:Bill of Attainder by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      from google:
      A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.

      As I have said above, I disagree with this bill and I hope it dies a swift death.

      That said, I do not agree that it is bill of attainder.

      Apple has not been declared guilty of any crime, either within the legal system or within this bill. The author of the bill is trying to encourage a government boycott of Apple as a retaliation for their lack of co-operation with the FBI. Again: I think that's wrong, but it's not a legislative declaration of guilt. It's just a pissed-off legislator trying to gain political points with their constituency. It won't become law, and rightly so.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    15. Re:Bill of Attainder by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The bill proposes a boycott of Apple by the government. That's not the same as a seizure of Apple's assets, or a denial of their rights.

      It is declaring Apple guilty and punishing them by refusing to permit them to play on a level playing field.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Bill of Attainder by timrod · · Score: 1

      No. Laws that require the government to prioritize US goods when purchasing things are not bills of attainder because they do not specifically identify any person or corporation not to buy goods from - "non-US entities" is a grouping that encompasses thousands of different companies. Similarly, laws requiring the purchase of supplies from approved vendors are also not bills of attainder as any vendor could potentially be approved.

      The reason this bill is a bill of attainder is because it specifically names and punishes Apple without a trial.

    17. Re:Bill of Attainder by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It doesn't punish Apple any more than i have been punished for not becoming an approved vendor or because my widgets are manufactured in Mexico.

      It does specifically name Apple though. It is a stupid bill too. It is essentially saying that the government cannot purchase devices it knows that spies and enemies cannot use because of security features unless they make it possible for spies and enemies to defeat the security too.

    18. Re:Bill of Attainder by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      The above serves as an example of why slashdot moderation has to be ignored to use the site well. Posting facts often result in "I disagree" downmods.Those who utilize the mod system to choose what posts to see miss a great deal of good information.

      Sure would be nice if the mod system was fixed. Accountability would go a long way, as would toxic moderation like the above actually being removed along with mod privileges. I'd love it if a downmod had to carry an accompanying explanation, too. No, I don't mean picking canned, insufficient answers from a list. And the 0-start for anonymous posts... that's always been a bad idea. A great deal of anon-supplied info never surfaces because of it.

      These are all pipe dreams after all these years of the site ignoring the mod problems, but... sigh.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  7. Conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The act is not going to be passed, because it is a lame attempt at some thick skulled republican trying to intimidate Apple into doing what they want them to do. This is no good reason to boycott apple for any reason. It is about as idiotic as saying that public services are banned from buying chevy trucks. Dumb, does not surprise me that this guy is the guy lined up to replace Marco Rubio, even his predecessor is a blistering idiot at best.

    1. Re:Conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... It is about as idiotic as saying that public services are banned from buying chevy trucks...

      Yea since the Government owns Chevy

    2. Re:Conflict of interest by cyberspittle · · Score: 0

      Don't fool yourself for a minute. Apple has been doing this for China for a long time. They only want a legal reason to say no to USA govt, in order to sell more iPhone as a "defender of privacy". Think you have privacy, do you?

    3. Re:Conflict of interest by lucm · · Score: 0

      Here's the highlight of your highly convincing political statement:

      lame
      thick skulled republican
      idiotic
      Dumb
      blistering idiot at best

      With this verve and all those bullet-proof points I'm sure you're gonna win over lots of people and make them see the light. Thank you for being a beacon of wisdom and intelligence in this world which is unfortunately ridden with people with different opinions than yours (aka the idiots).

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  8. Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his party? He is a GOPper.

    1. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOPpers always stand against the people. Stand against the people.

    2. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOPpers always stand against the people. Stand against the people.

      Unless you are rich people...

    3. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this site is now run by CONservatives. Run by CONservatives.

    4. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you thought you were being so subtle that we wouldn't get it the first time?

    5. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by lucm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like those rich slaves that Abraham Lincoln fought for. The bastard.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol.....you're funny.....you think the American civil war was about freeing slaves ??? Hahahhah.....ahhh.....you're cute :)

    7. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't tell if you're being funny or if you're really that stupid. Lincoln's Republicans were nothing like the party that's been bought and paid for by the wealthy and which uses the ignorant and religious for vote fodder.

    8. Re: Why does /. refuse to tell the truth about... by lucm · · Score: 1

      Lol.....you're funny.....you think the American civil war was about freeing slaves ??? Hahahhah.....ahhh.....you're cute :)

      If the Democrats had been on the good side in that war, you'd say that yes, it was. But since it was the Republicans who did the right thing, you're obviously looking for other explanations. That's typical liberal; always one more step closer to Baghdad Bob.

      It's like when Apple can no longer lie about being a market leader (now that Samsung alone sells more smartphones than Apple, not counting all other droids) so they start claiming to be leaders using some twisted metric, like "longest time spent playing Candy Crush while taking a shit". #1 #1 #1

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  9. Catch-22? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Apple complies and deliberately creates a security flaw, will the government be able to purchase their products then?

    1. Re:Catch-22? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the government will be their only client then. And if Apple does come out, then the government will mandate that we all buy one so they can keep an eye on us.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Catch-22? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I was wondering something. Why would the government want to use Apple phones if they are back doored and it is known that spies and others could access information on them?

      It seems to me they would want it the other way around. Don't use if there is a back door instead of if there isn't any.

    3. Re:Catch-22? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Kabuki!

      The idea is to convince the public that only the police should have these tools. The theatrics are actually working to a certain extent. Many people are on the side of the FBI. A few more attacks and it will be an easier sell every time. We've come a long way since the Church Committee

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. Catch 22 by DeadDecoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ironically, if Apple does comply with the federal request, they should be banned on grounds that their hardware is no longer secure.

    1. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it secure now if all it takes is a court order to break into it?

    2. Re:Catch 22 by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      They will be just fine for government use. Your claim is specious.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Catch 22 by lucm · · Score: 1

      Ironically, if Apple does comply with the federal request, they should be banned on grounds that their hardware is no longer secure.

      Do you know what the request is? They haven't been asked to unlock or hack into iPhones. They've simply been asked to disable the "brick after 10 failed attempts on the pin code" feature on THAT specific device (the one used by the guy who killed 14 people).

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they have been ordered to make a tool to disable that feature on any phone and hand it over to the FBI on a harddrive complete with an Apple PKI signature. The FBI isn't so ethical or stupid as to use the tool they own once and only once, never making copies to distribute or using it in other cases.

    5. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is there to stop the FBI from commandeering the phone (for privacy reasons, of course) extracting the modified firmware and reverse engineering a patch for whatever phone they want? or in some more extensive move have someone lift the source from apple HQ somehow....

      Apples' stance is if they did that they let the genie out of the bottle thought they didn’t break the firmware they open up the possibility for anyone to brute force pin discovery and with todays technology wouldn’t take all that long to go through the permutations needed if the phone didn’t thwart anyone for trying too many times.

    6. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "simply been asked", hah.

    7. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not at all that simple. Anyone could make a firmware modification to achieve that, but the hardware will not load the modified firmware unless it is signed with a cryptographic key held by Apple. If Apple signs such a firmware with their key, it will be possible to load the new firmware on any other Apple iPhone. You might argue that Apple could perform a check for a hardware ID of some kind in the firmware, to ensure it only loads on this one phone, yet the device ID could potentially be spoofed in hardware which would render such a technique pointless. Once the modified and signed firmware is on the device and the device is in the hands of the government, the firmware can be extracted and potentially used on any iPhone. It will probably then be leaked and available to other nations, then ultimately anyone, and then we have a situation where you might as well disable all iPhone encryption altogether.

      If the software is created and leaves an Apple clean room, then it really is as bad as people are saying. If the court could give the phone to Apple and allow them to retrieve the contents without returning the device, I'm sure they could satisfy the request, but it's highly unlikely that the government would be willing to do that.

    8. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And once that is possible, it will be done on the next 10, 20, 50, 100 devices.
      When the federal government gets to do it then state government will. After that, local police and sheriff's departments.

      To shut off that feature, they have to make a version of the OS with it off. That OS version isn't going to be locked to a single device, not in anyone's wildest imaginings. If that exists, it will be used at every hand's turn.

      Pick pretty much any law or decision where the people getting their way are asked if it will be used in X unrelated situation and they will always say "No, it will never be used like that!". Then they use it in that situation as soon as they possibly can because it was never really about the original use, it was about all the additional uses that they could argue once the precedent was set. Stick "terrorism" on the front of something and people will fall all over themselves to give away their rights and privacy.

    9. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, if Apple does comply with the federal request, they should be banned on grounds that their hardware is no longer secure.

      Do you know what the request is? They haven't been asked to unlock or hack into iPhones. They've simply been asked to disable the "brick after 10 failed attempts on the pin code" feature on THAT specific device (the one used by the guy who killed 14 people).

      And of course iPhones are not mass produced, they are custom built by hand and each device is unique.

    10. Re:Catch 22 by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      And we know just how secure government computers are...

    11. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Respectfully, you are wrong.

      The FBI are asking the Court to compel Apple to write software that will

      1. Disable the 10-strike wipe of the device
      2. Allow for the automation of the PIN submission process, in software, to save an Agent having to punch the numbers in by hand...
      3. Removing the progressive delay mechanism, so that every permutation can be checked at computer speed, reducing the barrier to a delay of a few seconds.

      But much more importantly than all of that, the FBI are asking that Apple write the software and then *give the software to the FBI*.

      This is a WORLD of difference from what Apple has done to support other Law Enforcement requests [where Apple has not been compelled to disclose any specific capabilities to the requesting agency]. Make no mistake, the FBI are now asking for the Federal Master Key to iPhones.

    12. Re:Catch 22 by Malc · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, by complying with the US government, foreign governments will be able to ask for this too. What's Apple going to do in China, give up their huge profits? Do Americans really want to let foreign governments have the power to open their phones? Probably most don't care given how many don't even have passports.

    13. Re:Catch 22 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Probably most don't care given how many don't even have passports.

      Most of them can't afford to travel, and you want them to spend money on a passport?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Catch 22 by lucm · · Score: 1

      If the software is created and leaves an Apple clean room, then it really is as bad as people are saying. If the court could give the phone to Apple and allow them to retrieve the contents without returning the device, I'm sure they could satisfy the request, but it's highly unlikely that the government would be willing to do that.

      The request is to help them unlock THAT phone. Apple PR is making the jump from there to pretend that it's yet another backdoor, but guess what, the FBI isn't the NSA or the CIA for that matter. They will do morally arguable things (like letting a criminal commit more crimes while they build their case) but they won't break the law to get their man.

      Apple should have said: fine get a warrant and let's do it together this time. But no. They decided to use this as a PR stunt, as if they had any fucking care in the world about the privacy of their users that they sell on a daily basis to advertisers. Fuck them. 14 people have been killed by a known terrorist, this is not a nationwide dragnet to spy on people a la NSA.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    15. Re:Catch 22 by lucm · · Score: 1

      And once that is possible, it will be done on the next 10, 20, 50, 100 devices.

      You're swimming in that same logic that anti-gay marriage people have (it starts with two men, what's next, a man and a child?).

      Get real. This is serious shit, be a SJW another day.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    16. Re:Catch 22 by lucm · · Score: 1

      Ironically, if Apple does comply with the federal request, they should be banned on grounds that their hardware is no longer secure.

      Do you know what the request is? They haven't been asked to unlock or hack into iPhones. They've simply been asked to disable the "brick after 10 failed attempts on the pin code" feature on THAT specific device (the one used by the guy who killed 14 people).

      And of course iPhones are not mass produced, they are custom built by hand and each device is unique.

      And your point is what? They have access to the device itself, it's not as if they wanted to track the guy (who is dead) in an ocean of iPhone users.

      Apple CAN do it without hurting all their other customers, so they HAVE to do it.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    17. Re:Catch 22 by lucm · · Score: 1

      But much more importantly than all of that, the FBI are asking that Apple write the software and then *give the software to the FBI*.

      Of course, instead the FBI should Fedex the phone used by a known terrorist to Apple care and let them do it.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    18. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The request is to help them unlock THAT phone. Apple PR is making the jump from there to pretend that it's yet another backdoor, but guess what, the FBI isn't the NSA or the CIA for that matter. They will do morally arguable things (like letting a criminal commit more crimes while they build their case) but they won't break the law to get their man.

      All federal agencies routinely violate the law. That's probably unavoidable, barring massive reform of government and legal ethics.

      We no longer have slavery, or race based discrimination against African-Americans, but the legal ethics problems that allowed these things to previously exist have not gone away, and have actually gotten worse (in some respects) over the past few decades.

      Just as everybody with a functioning brain understood that slavery was wrong, so do does everybody with a functioning brain and a good knowledge of US legal history understand that there are huge problems with every major area of US law, from IP law, to contract law, to property law, to tort law, to law regarding federal secrets, to law regarding law enforcement, to law governing health care and insurance, to laws on lobbying, and so on.

      All of these problems exist in large part due to an unethical legal profession which acts in its own interests. It's not a conspiracy any more than slavery was, but rather the result of having too many unethical and amoral individuals involved in the creation, maintenance, and implementation of the law, and not enough public oversight.

      As a result, US federal law violates the US Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land, in many ways, and judges that might be willing to rock the boat not being selected for office. It violates both the explicit rights (such as those arising under the 1st and 2nd Amendments), and even more frequently violates the implicit rights (such as those fundamental rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the unspecified rights "retained by the people" and "reserved to the people").

      In short, anybody enforcing US federal law is going to be breaking the law in lots of ways, since US law is so often illegal. Whether its the FBI, the IRS, customs, the ATF, or any of the others - in this day and age, government agents are routinely violating the law.

      Thank the lawyers for that. Time for the public to wake up and do something about this.

    19. Re: Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has to sign the code for each phone it gets installed on. That's what. But you're missing the point. Once the precedent has been set, a court order will be issued for each and every locked iphone the govt comes in contact with. The encryption will be effectively nullified. That is what the govt really wants.

  11. Taxpayers shouldn't be "subsidizing" Apple by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Since our money could be put to such better use subsidizing corrupt, power-hungry politicians.

    1. Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be "subsidizing" Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already ARE subsidizing Apple.

      Apple pays a mere fraction of their dues taxes, and mostly stays in tax havens. Granted, plain insight tax minimization may be legal - due to high level unwillingness to tax winners and donors, - donors who can and will take retribution against uppity congresscritters.
      Legal also means the inability to pierce legal maneuvers, so it is just too hard to attempt to prove or test suspicions.

      But its great. Wait until other firms that simply drops packets to produce micro encryption boxes fitted with diode noise generators, with super stripped down firmware the size of an ADSL filter that drops packets.

      I hope they alter the search engine weightings in this presidential campaign to rip points off uppity noisemakers and non supporters.

  12. I thought it had got as silly as it could, but... by MrKrillls · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First I read about seized iPhone may hold “dormant cyber pathogen” http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... , and now, this new idiot.

    The stupidity is strong here.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  13. Grandstanding Schmuck by lordDallan · · Score: 1

    The honorable Representative in question:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    http://jolly.house.gov/

    A real trailblazer in his concern for Veterans, The Economy, Healthcare, and Beaches.

    1. Re:Grandstanding Schmuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how he upgraded to trophy wife 2.0 recently. Real nice guy...

    2. Re:Grandstanding Schmuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the upgrade was Trophy Wife #2's idea. A girl could do a lot worse than a sitting Congressman...

    3. Re: Grandstanding Schmuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a scientologist. 'Nuff said.

  14. someone start a petition to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    publicly execute David Jolly

    1. Re:someone start a petition to by lucm · · Score: 2

      publicly execute David Jolly

      I've seen idiotic behavior from fanbois before but that's up there for sure.

      This whole situation is hilarious. The same people who were crying for more gun control from the feds are now crying because the feds want Apple to unlock the iPhone of a known dead terrorist. Cognitive dissonance much?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re: someone start a petition to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rabid gun rights supporter here. You make no sense with that one, especially since far too many gun owners blindly vote Republican because the NRA says so.

      It's mostly Republicans who promote the statist law enforcement worshipping propaganda being used against Apple (and the American people) on this one.

  15. Just let the Courts sort it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Instead of all this grandstanding and rhetorical faggotry, if you've got a dispute with Apple or anyone else, you can duke it out in court. Apple decided too, but the blowhards in the US government, trained their entire lives to win through with bullshit and denial, simply cannot fathom the idea of winning an argument in a court of law. It would demand a level of philosophical, let alone legal rigor which they have trained their entire lives to bypass, shortcut and avoid.

    I don't even like Apple, but this faggotry and bullshit from the media and the government over this data issue goes above and beyond even the Cult of Mac's insufferable superiority complex. These mental midgets need to be told to shut up, sit down and fuck off at every available opportunity. Our society needs to listen to the adults in the room, and needs to swear more at the children.

    1. Re:Just let the Courts sort it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of all this grandstanding and rhetorical faggotry, if you've got a dispute with Apple or anyone else, you can duke it out in court.....

      Apple in court? There's something new....

    2. Re: Just let the Courts sort it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our society does not need to swear at the children: it needs to beat them up, crush their skulls and feast on the goo inside while defecating on their pitiful remains.

  16. Unconstitutional proposition by mysidia · · Score: 0

    This act would be a flagrant violation of Apple's 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.

    You cannot have an act of congress specifying that fewer rights, or different rules or laws apply to an individual (or corporation) than everything else, particularly not as a result of exercise of constitutionally protected rights to challenge unlawful orders...., the constitution prohibits as much.

    1. Re:Unconstitutional proposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Government purchasing is subject to all sorts of regulations. That's all this legislation really is, and it is completely legal.

    2. Re:Unconstitutional proposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off

    3. Re:Unconstitutional proposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boo hoo I showed the idiots here that your post was too fucked up to score 5, now you're just pissed - bitch

    4. Re:Unconstitutional proposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This act would be a flagrant violation of Apple's 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.

      You cannot have an act of congress specifying that fewer rights, or different rules or laws apply to an individual (or corporation) than everything else, particularly not as a result of exercise of constitutionally protected rights to challenge unlawful orders...., the constitution prohibits as much.

      Wrong. Government purchasing is subject to all sorts of regulations. That's all this legislation really is, and it is completely legal.

      Wrong. The government does not have the legal authority to violate the Bill of Rights under ANY circumstances.

      Attempting to disguise a law that violates the Bill of Rights as a "government purchasing regulation" does not change this. It's simply the legal equivalent of money laundering, attempting to make something appear as other then what it is. If this was not the case, the government could violate any right it desired, simply by disguising the violating law as a "purchasing regulation".

      Congress is not the highest law in the land. The Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land.

    5. Re:Unconstitutional proposition by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That's all this legislation really is, and it is completely legal.

      No it's not. Passing a purchasing requirement providing vendors to provide weak or backdoored encryption to the government purchasers would be constitutional (But stupid); however, passing such law, and saying it only applies to Apple by name would be unconstitutional.

      Legitimate purchasing regulation treats all vendors equally under the law.

      You can pass regulations requiring certain activities or prohibiting certain activities from vendors, but you cannot have a regulation requiring certain activities of vendor X but not vendor Y for the same product or service.

      In other words: THE LAW AS WRITTEN would have to require the same conditions for purchases from ANY COMPANY meeting legal criteria that stand up to 14th amendment scrutiny as necessary discrimination; not just Apple.

  17. Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps a preview of the type of dumb and petty legislation we will see in Trump's America?!

    1. Re:Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't be any more dumb and dysfunctional than Obama's America.

  18. Subsidizing?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With apples cash pile is that really what we're gonna call it? Enjoy all the android holes, government fags.

  19. Revert to 1990s control of encryption by cyberspittle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing the govt can always do, whether we like it or not, is revert to the control of encryption that was common in the 1990s and earlier. They could, by law, restrict encryption for export, etc. One reason Apple should not push to hard, but then again Apple has no problem providing all kinds of decryption support in China.

    1. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by evilviper · · Score: 1

      One thing the govt can always do, whether we like it or not, is revert to the control of encryption that was common in the 1990s and earlier. They could, by law, restrict encryption for export, etc.

      No, they can't. As I just ranted about in an earlier comment... Source code is protected speech, and speech is constitutionally protected from government censorship. Without the overwhelming support needed to pass a constitutional amendment (which nobody believes the US Fed can possibly hope to manage these days), they can't legally stop the export of software, including encryption, from the US.

      This is the trick PGP used many years ago to get around export restrictions, and they were eventually successful in court:

      Export Regulations only covers software in electronic form (e.g. on disks, or via the Internet). PGP 5.0i, on the other hand, was compiled from source code that was printed in a book (well, actually 12 books - over 6000 pages!). The books were exported from the USA in accordance with the US Export Regulations, and the pages were then scanned and OCRed to make the source available in electronic form.

      This was not an easy task. More than 70 people from all over Europe worked for over 1000 hours to make the PGP 5.0i release possible. But it was worth it. PGP 5.0i was the first PGP version that is 100% legal to use outside the USA, because no source code was exported in electronic form.
      http://www.pgpi.org/pgpi/project/scanning/

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Control? Is that like back in the 90's when they prohibited everyone from using PGP? Yeah, bring back that control. That was really effective, I'm sure it will work.

    3. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Also, we go go back to classifying encryption as armaments, then the NRA would be on Apple's side. And a politician with the balls to stand up to the NRA is even more rare a creature than a politician with any shred of honesty or integrity.

      Come to think of it... that may really be the best thing for Apple and encryption.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Yes, restricting the export of software that does encryption would work so well. It would take Apple and any other company all of two minutes to get around that.

      "Hey everyone. The encryption group is going to have to relocate due to these new rules. What country do we want to move to? Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, anywhere else? Relocation expenses and a large bonus for the hassle. The final OS integration team is coming too."

      And then Apple isn't exporting the software but importing it.

    5. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the FIVE eyes countries - the worst possible picks.
      China wont let companies own stuff tightly- so not there. Not France - they just had a tantrum.
      Sweden and Norway - compromised. Taiwan might be persuaded - and not Japan.
      Russia or one of the Stans - possible.

      So do a team effort. Design shared secret work in US. Have several countries do bits and pieces
      Make it so it has to travel to TWO countries, with say one, Switzerland with tight conditions, such as not under court orders or duress.

    6. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA is ALREADY on Apple's side...
      The NRA loves privacy.... they have said that.
      The NRA is against the NSA spying, and against general spying and databasing by government... they have said that.
      The NRA uses its phones as a call tree and as means to buy and sell arms between the people... the want that to be secure.
      The NRA is a natural symbiant with all crypto and privacy folks and methods.

    7. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure ship books for all of Apple's source code to China, let them type it in by hand, and then tell me nobody in the Chinese government had a back door put in.

    8. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It would be extremely easy to checksum the source code before printing out the books, and even include it in the books. Then you simply verify the manual labor by checksumming the output, and comparing the hashes. You have someone fix the work, until it matches EXACTLY.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

      That would only apply in USA. Don't fool yourself. In PRC you have no protection. USA govt can have software "rendition" done overseas where USA laws do not apply. Or maybe just stick your head in the sand. Have some more Kool-Aid. Fool.

    10. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

      That was my point exactly!

    11. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

      SCP to PRC is much easier. Why would they put it in books?

    12. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

      Once encryption is reclassified as a weapon, it could be done. Don't think for a minute, that this will protect you for a minute. Software "rendition" can be done overseas in locations where USA law does not apply. When companies have to comply with governments such as PRC, etc. with full access to customer phone, data, etc., there is no privacy. There is only the illusion of privacy. This is all legal maneuvering by Apple so it can legally not comply with USA govt requests. It would then be done elsewhere. Imagine if you wanted to sell product in PRC, you would have to comply with PRC govt requests.

    13. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

      Don't fool yourself. Software "rendition" can be done from overseas.

    14. Re:Revert to 1990s control of encryption by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Except for all that cop boosting when they shoot an UNARMED citizen, right?

    15. Re: Revert to 1990s control of encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of ITAR regulations. Please try and keep up.

  20. Apple should just move by the_other_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Close all offices and manufacturing in the US and go. The US does not need all those jobs and taxes.

    --
    134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    1. Re:Apple should just move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.. you think that any amount of Apple hardware products (the bulk of apple's bottom line for retail profits) are being manufactured in the US? You think that a company like Apple doesn't have a tax shelter in some offshore island/country? Congratulations you are among the misinformed. The only jobs that would be lost would be engineering and management which aren't easily transplanted but you should go have a long conversation with the highly skilled but recently displaced workers at Disney about that. Maybe moving all jobs out of that area to another continent might solve the housing crunch there?

    2. Re:Apple should just move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes? What taxes?

    3. Re:Apple should just move by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      No, they just need to shift the encryption team offshore and create it as a separate company. Then they are importing it.

    4. Re:Apple should just move by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      That's clearly what they're planning to do. Do you think their new building only looks like a spaceship?

  21. Apple already breaking encryption for PRC by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

    Don't think for a minute that you have privacy with iPhone. Apple only wants to be able to legally say no to requests from USA govt. In Peoples Republic of China, Apple must comply, or they cannot do business there. Tech companies must provide PRC with source code (under SLA), just as Microsoft did with Windows.

    1. Re:Apple already breaking encryption for PRC by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Don't think for a minute that you have privacy with iPhone. Apple only wants to be able to legally say no to requests from USA govt. In Peoples Republic of China, Apple must comply, or they cannot do business there. Tech companies must provide PRC with source code (under SLA), just as Microsoft did with Windows.

      If that source code means signing keys, yeah. Otherwise, you're wrong.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:Apple already breaking encryption for PRC by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If they can't say no, then they can't ask for money.

    3. Re:Apple already breaking encryption for PRC by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

      Source code was one particular example of tech companies complying with PRC. I am sure that there are other ways that tech companies are complying with PRC. After all PRC is big market.

    4. Re:Apple already breaking encryption for PRC by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Source code was one particular example of tech companies complying with PRC. I am sure that there are other ways that tech companies are complying with PRC. After all PRC is big market.

      Companies provided source code _for a security audit_. What about Linux? The PRC has access to the source code of Linux as well. Because it's Open Source.

  22. Re:I thought it had got as silly as it could, but. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The stupidity is strong here.

    The stupidity is strong where? Do you need to be reminded that these are elected officials?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  23. If this passes, I'll buy an iPhone! by scrib · · Score: 1

    I prefer not to have the walled garden, but I'd like to protest this stupid rule more than I want to protest Apple!

    --
    Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
  24. Good ole GOP by linuxguy · · Score: 0

    When I read the headline, I guessed that it had to be a GOP guy pushing this forward. And sure enough it was.

    Not to excuse the Dems, they bring about turkeys of their own. But it is getting easier to tell which bad legislation comes from which camp.

    1. Re:Good ole GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Au contraire, the headline doesn't identify his party at all. That means he's a Democrat, since we all know there is a vast media conspiracy to conceal all Democratic peccadilloes from the public, which means they don't list even Obama's party when he's inevitably impeached.

      My only question is why the Republicans let so many Democrats run in their primaries. First Reagan, then Bush, more recently Perry and Trump.

  25. Illegal by Dunbal · · Score: 0

    This is just a bill of attainder. Congresscritter should know better.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not buying from Apple" is not a "punishment", per se. The government refuses to fund Medicaid treatments or educational practices that don't fit their bureaucratic standards, they don't allow children to attend federally funded schools without proof of vaccination, and they don't do business with business that don't fit the arcane bureaucratic requirements for non-discriminatory employment.

      Withholding money does not require a conviction, or boycotts for political reasons throughout American history would have been illegal.

    2. Re:Illegal by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Would it be a bill of attainder if the Hyde Amendment were amended to deny funding for abortions to Planned Parenthood, but allowed for other abortion providers?

  26. well by superwiz · · Score: 1

    I guess that's one way a politician can announce their retirement. Oh, and why would US government buy products which can be broken into by foreign governments? Is he trying to make America less safe?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  27. Apple supporting Democrat terrorist scum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple refusing to unlock the phone of a couple of Democrats who shot and killed numerous people? WOW. Color me surprised (while I wait for some safe-space-millennial to cry about the word "color" and run to a grief counselor to talk about how the word has destroyed their precious snowflake world).

    1. Re:Apple supporting Democrat terrorist scum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize true religious fundamentalists are far right conservatives don't you? That word is not locked into Christians. I know I know details.

    2. Re: Apple supporting Democrat terrorist scum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right had this habit of calling anybody who does anything wrong a Democrat without knowledge one way or the other. Most of them are stupid enough to believe or at least say that Hitler was a left wing dictator, or that fascism and socialism are related. The stupidity is mind boggling.

  28. Knowingly unconstitutional... by nebaz · · Score: 1

    With so many blatantly unconstitutional laws passed, it would be nice if the people that wrote & passed them could be held accountable somehow. I suppose we can all dream.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  29. Warnings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    All tech products sold with poor encryption should have the following warning in a large font:

    WARNING:

    This data is stored on a US server, using INTENTIONALLY WEAK ENCRYPTION which is EASILY BYPASSED.

    Users are advised NOT to store anything PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE.

    Users assume ALL RISK for any IDENTITY THEFT.

    Users are ENCOURAGED to purchase IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION INSURANCE. Note that this insurance may also be hosted in the US and may be INEFFECTIVE.

    Users are requested to use a CREDIT CARD for ALL PURCHASES and review statements monthly for suspicious activity.

  30. fair enough by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    Tax payer money shouldn't be wasted on rounded corners anyway.

    Government computers are supposed to be utilitarian and beige.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  31. Maybe Congressman Jolly by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Should rename himself Jolly-Roger.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  32. Don't do this one by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

    Apple admit it. The government owns the phone in the first place, and the people whose privacy is being violated are dead and evil. Let the government win this one because Apple has no chance of winning it. Pick a different case.

    1. Re:Don't do this one by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      Apparently, in spite of FBI denials, New York police have dozens of similar requests waiting for this one to set the precedent they're waiting for. Would one of those be a battle more to your taste?

      Maybe you'd prefer that we all just roll over and let the warm, fuzzy people from the letter agencies scratch our tummies. Because let's face it, if you can't trust the people brought to you by J. Edgar Hoover, who can you trust?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Don't do this one by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Apple admit it. The government owns the phone in the first place, and the people whose privacy is being violated are dead and evil. Let the government win this one because Apple has no chance of winning it. Pick a different case.

      Clever guy. Absolutely, the government owns this phone. The people whose privacy would be violated are dead and evil. The government is free to examine this phone in any way they like. Apple isn't stopping them.

      But then it's not Apple's phone. Apple is not involved in this case. It has no reason to do anything. If my phone is locked and I forgot the passcode and I'm not even a terrorist, Apple won't help me unlocking the phone. Why should they do it now? It's not their phone, none of their business. They sold the phone. To the government. Once it was sold, it wasn't Apple's responsibility anymore but the governments.

  33. legislation is cheap to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, congressmen get paid about $200K/year. Triple that to include overhead, 2,000 work hours/year, so about $300/hour. If it's a bill banged out in several minutes, maybe $100. I imagine staff will be cheaper.

    Now, for something like Obamacare... I wonder how many man-years went into writing that.

    1. Re:legislation is cheap to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, for something like Obamacare... I wonder how many man-years went into writing that.

      Ask the republicans. After all, they did write most of it. Yes, really.

  34. It's a shame the police state is taking over by evilviper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US was founded upon fear of an excessively powerful central government, as the British crown was seen massively abusing their power. So strong protections were built-in that weakened law enforcement for the benefit of civil liberties. There have always been other systems of government that are slightly more effective at catching or prosecuting criminals, but Americans knew, for hundreds of years, those trade-offs weren't worth it.

    The limiting of government power was so ingrained that the US seems to be the only major nation without a state broadcaster. Outside the US, everybody in the world knows the VOA, but they are NOT allowed to operate inside the US at all. We believed the ability of the current government to directly influence the electorate, was too much power and control to give to our representatives, and settled on allowing only operation on foreign soil, with aggressive protections against even incidental domestic operation.

    A warrant, today, gets the FBI exactly the same information it did 50 years ago... They can tap and record all the calls that occur after the warrant is issued, get a log of all previous calls that were made, etc.

    Computers have made US law enforcement lazy. They expect they can get a warrant and will automatically be handed an archive with the contents of ALL of your communications for the past several YEARS. The information they got with a warrant decades ago is no longer good enough for them, and they're going to insist on the power they've gotten accustomed to, and refuse to allow privacy to make a comeback.

    Remember, it was only a year ago that the entire contents of your phone were siphoned off by the police whenever you were pulled over just for speeding. This was done under the laws that allows them to look for weapons in the vicinity that you might be able to reach for, and which got extended to allow into evidence incriminating documents that just happened to be found in the process of searching for weapons.

    And what did the police do with their gigabytes of all your personal information they siphoned off your phone? Maybe look for patterns of terrorism and drug dealing? No. Why they instead they thought it would be a good idea to look for any nude photos you might have, and share them with their friends. Hooray for law enforcement keeping us all safe!

    The San Bernardino case is pretty damn obviously worthless, too. The FBI has already FAILED to protect the public. The shooters already carried out their attacks, and were shot dead. FBI and Homeland Security failed miserably to identify them as threats, despite there being ample publicly available information to identify them as ISIL sympathizers. It's the same story as the 9/11 attacks all over again. Homeland Security had MORE INFORMATION than they were able to process and deal with, yet they use attacks as a lame excuse to expand their power, their budget, and get access to much more information, which again, they don't have any hope of being able to process in a timely manner.

    Homeland Security has become better and better at revealing details after the fact, but is still useless at identifying individuals who pose a threat before they can carry out their plans to murder people. Apple unlocking iPhones for the FBI is more of the same... It won't possibly help identify future threats, it'll just be a little bit more information the FBI can publish about their past.

    This was settled back in the early 90s with the PGP case. Code for encryption programs falls under the constitutional protections of freedom of speech. A new federal law or court ruling cannot override constitutional rights, and there's absolutely no hope of

    It's a shame Homeland Security has gone so far the wrong way. Part of the NSA's purview is to help IMPROVE our domestic security against attack and interception by foreign governments. Under a cloud of p

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:It's a shame the police state is taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies are global now. Lets say someone with an iphone is detained in North Korea, Iran, China.. if Apple has the backdoor available, what is to say that any of those governments have any less merit in requesting access to phones to check for threats they see to their national security than the US? I doubt that developing this backdoor can just give the US and close allies to the US proprietary rights to information.

    2. Re:It's a shame the police state is taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was beta USA. USA 2.0 is increasingly infatuated with the cudgel of government forcing whatever group to come to heel, as long as the reins of power rest in your hand (which they never do for long).

      I don't even blame the government. It reflects a populace that is too quick to throw away hard won freedoms in the name of maintaining a bubble existence. Encryption is but another facet.

      Perhaps it is just political maturity, but the sense of limited government is hanging in the trees.

    3. Re:It's a shame the police state is taking over by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's a shame Homeland Security has gone so far the wrong way.

      Your comment was going great until here. This is what the HSA was intended to do from the beginning. It's not a shame, it's their purpose. There is no other.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:It's a shame the police state is taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make it any less of a shame, though.

    5. Re:It's a shame the police state is taking over by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      It's a shame Homeland Security has gone so far the wrong way. Part of the NSA's purview is to help IMPROVE our domestic security against attack and interception by foreign governments. Under a cloud of public suspicion, they improved DES back in the early days of encryption. They added trusted features to linux and released SELinux to the public. etc. Now they're all about destroying what they used to build, as they have decided their own power to domestically spy is more important than the security of the nation against foreign adversaries. I suppose without a strong and looming existential threat from a nation-state like the USSR, we all too quickly forget our own disturbing history of government abuse, and lose our sense of priorities.

      Just saying: It's the FBI, and not the NSA. I don't know about the current NSA, but the former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden has said publicly that unbreakable encryption is an overall advantage for the national security of the USA.

    6. Re:It's a shame the police state is taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      My take on the Founding of the US was a bunch of rich guys didn't want to pay their taxes, so conned their neighbours into a revolution

  35. PATRIOT act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror.

    That is how we got the USA PATRIOT act. We are still recovering from that clusterfuck.

    No thanks.

  36. This is the same kind of guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...who would have been clamoring for tougher laws to punish anyone who dared to try protecting Jews in 1930s Germany. He's a blithering blustering idiot awash in conformist groupthink.

    David Jolly, another personification of the term "Florida Man"

    1. Re:This is the same kind of guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to understand 1930's antisemitism in Germany, simply replace "the Jews" with "privileged white males" and "the 1%"; that's basically what the term "the Jews" stood for because they were widely believed to be selfish bankers and capitalists. So, then as now, it was mostly progressives going after that group.

    2. Re: This is the same kind of guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG. Jews were portrayed be a tight knit group of financial manipulators by a variety of methods, but that's as far as the 'capitalist' business went. Hitler and the Nazis hated unions, communists, etc. and supported (and were supported by) the rich and corporations, a good many of them Americans.

      Hitler was elected, and did not steal his election the way election stealing is done today. People really did vote for him in large numbers. Even in the 1930s you needed money to pull that off and Hitler was not rich at the time--so where did the money come from? Capitalists always like to ignore that almost-buried part of history because it shows the true nature of real capitalism, and of course because then they can't portray themselves as victims as the right always does.

      Interestingly, although inaccurate, Jews were used as a proxy for bankers, who the public in Germany had come to (correctly) believe had a large part in their financial mess. So the Nazis successfully channeled that economic hate into racial hate, protecting the banks and other corporations at the same time. Banks and multinationals screwing up an economy--sound familiar?

  37. Also a lie and a fraud by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.

    Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a fraud on the voters. It is a proposed law that he knows is unconstitutional, so it would have no effect even if it were passed. And it is a proposed law he knows will never even be seriously voted on, much less pass, but will be referred to a subcommittee in order to die--it is a cheap campaign stunt.

    The classic example of a do-nothing politician lying about doing something. Even if you agree with his position, this is basically a fraud on the voters.

  38. Dear David "Clueless nitwit" Jolly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir are an idiot. It's your uneducated, knee jerk reaction mentality that strips away the very being of being an American. Freedom and it sounds like because of one incident you are willing to give yours up. Well, unlike you I am a true American and I want my freedom and privacy. So I sincerely request that you go fuck yourself and jump off a cliff.

  39. Future headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. Government proposes 6.5 billion research project to build "unhackable" phone. Several Chinese makers set to bid.

  40. Apple Just gave to Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 trillion in donations.

  41. I dare them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fantastic. I dare them to pass this law and try to get work done. Maybe they can switch to Linux too while they are at it. LOL @ the FedTards.

  42. Florida Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough said.

  43. Freedom Fries by Required+Snark · · Score: 1, Interesting
    And just how long did that last?

    If there is a way to be an asshole in public, someone in the GOP will do it. And the rest will follow, otherwise they might get kicked out of the pack for being "too librul".

    Heck, Trump just told the public he is well hung during a presidential debate. For the Republicans a "big tent" means that any level of stupid is allowed. The fact that so many Republicans hold elected office is a measure of the blind idiocy of the American public.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re: Freedom Fries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a measure of the blind idiocy of some, amplified by corporate money and gerrymandered districts. Otherwise Republicans would be what they were for decades--irrelevant loud fools who oppose anything most people support. That kept them out of power and enabled good wages, good employment numbers, and a high standard of living for a long time.

      Then, after a concerted effort and lots of funding, they grabbed power in the 80s and have used every trick in the book to keep it. Meanwhile the economy has done what it always does with conservatives in power--bubble, crash, and take wealth and opportunity from working people because deliberately or not their ideas have never worked in all of human history.

    2. Re:Freedom Fries by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      And just how long did that last?

      If there is a way to be an asshole in public, someone in the GOP will do it. And the rest will follow, otherwise they might get kicked out of the pack for being "too librul".

      There used to be decent Republicans in office; ones who understood that having a different viewpoint didn't make you evil and who would work with the Democrats to find common ground and actually do things that were good for the country. They had some core principles but understood compromise was what got things done. They could argue long and hard on the floor and afterwards go get a drink and figure out what common ground let them come up with a solution both sides could live with. Somewhere along the line compromise became a bad word and a synonym for traitor. The Republicans thought they could control first the religious right and later the Tea Party and are discovering they were wrong; especially given the shift in the US electorate's makeup. They used code words to say things they couldn't say in public but that their audience understood; Trump is just saying it out loud now.

      Heck, Trump just told the public he is well hung during a presidential debate. For the Republicans a "big tent" means that any level of stupid is allowed. The fact that so many Republicans hold elected office is a measure of the blind idiocy of the American public.

      Maybe he just wanted to ensure the tent is big enough to "accommodate" him.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Freedom Fries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, Trump just told the public he is well hung during a presidential debate. For the Republicans a "big tent" means that any level of stupid is allowed. The fact that so many Republicans hold elected office is a measure of the blind idiocy of the American public.

      He did that because Rubio, the (current) favored establishment candidate, has been attacking him for having a small penis.

      Which doesn't refute your point in the slightest about the current level of debate in the GOP, but it's worth mentioning that Trump isn't the one who brought that up in the first place.

    4. Re:Freedom Fries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere along the line compromise became a bad word and a synonym for traitor.

      It happened when politicians had been going to too many parties after arguing hard on the floor and got to find they had more in common with each other than with their constituents. When they realized that instead of coming to an accord balancing principles, they could advance their combined goal of accumulating power by putting forth terrible bill after terrible bill and negotiating on kickbacks instead of on the main points.

      Now we're at the point where one party could propose building concentration camps, and the supposedly opposing party would hold out to make sure the construction jobs to go to their states.

    5. Re:Freedom Fries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it idiotic to prefer stupid over evil? Us voters aren't exactly spoilt for choice.

  44. Not stupid, just knowing their constituents well. by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    Sadly an elected official is only accountable to the people who vote for them. Therefore doing something which 98% of the world's population regards as stupid, but which will play well in your constituency, is not a sign of stupidity, it's a sign of being in tune with your electorate. It's for this reason that democracy is quite such a painful process. The reality is that most of our elected representatives aren't stupid, they just know exactly what will get them reelected.

  45. Re:As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Why are we paying people to ponder such things??

    Article I of the US Constitution.

  46. Re:Trump was right - ban apple! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They picked one little fight, and the feds got scared.
    They want to ban apple and use something else instead.

  47. Re:Good Policy by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Why should government funds be used to enrich a company that will not comply with a legal order

    It may be a legal order, but is it constitutional?

  48. Re:what a knob by scarboni888 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "what more is there to say"

    "The terrorists who committed the crime are already dead so what the fuck is all this bullshit really about?"

    sorry, does a question count?

  49. Re:I thought it had got as silly as it could, but. by rwyoder · · Score: 1

    First I read about seized iPhone may hold “dormant cyber pathogen” http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... , and now, this new idiot.

    The stupidity is strong here.

    That iPhone may also hold the latitude/longitude of Jimmy Hoffa's body, and the identity of the Zodiac Killer.

  50. Bill of Attainder==legislation targeting 1 entity by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    What it does to that entity is completely irrelevant. The legislation passed a few years ago to defund ACORN was also one such bill, and it entailed no seizure of assets as well.

  51. No, not every citizen or every company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even every politician. But I guess mentioning that would be doubleplusungood. The tree of liberty needs feed.

  52. Same kind of idiot who vilifies defense lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice of him to make it clear that he thinks it's government's place of bully companies to do things that they likely force them to do legally. Right up there with people who vilified the defense attorneys of accused terrorists; always nice to see someone holding their hand so perfectly over their heart and staring so lovingly at the flag while plotting their Orwellian paradise.

  53. Hey Politicians by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0
    Yeah, you know you guys who are on child protection panels who ask male interns on dates. You who text photos of your weiner to women, you who hang out in airport bathrooms and have a real "wide stance". You who are oftne seriously slimy, and get selfies with child molesters.......

    Do you really want a telephone that law enforcement has direct access to at all times?

    Give it a little thought.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Hey Politicians by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      So you want government corruption, sex crimes against children, and terrorism to be somewhere between more difficult and impossible to investigate?

      One wonders where your moral crusade will end?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Hey Politicians by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      One wonders where your moral crusade will end?

      Probably about the same time you get a sense of humor.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Hey Politicians by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      What you wrote was intended to be funny? My condolences.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Hey Politicians by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What you wrote was intended to be funny? My condolences.

      Actually, my condolences are with you. If you don't like the joke, fine. But the trouble you have taken to first take it seriously, then feeling compelled to throw in a gratuitous and untrue "my condolences"? Seriously. I mean Poe's law wasn't even in effect. Pee not on mine Wheaties, cold fjord.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  54. public servant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that this loop was elected by the populace of a congressional district, it does not speak well of the populace.
    But then, other than the self-proclaimed caliphate that is actively devolving themselves (with some luck, maybe they'll devolve to use stone tools instead of guns,) we're the only country on the planet that has loops in the government insisting Intelligent Design (tm) is a branch of science.

  55. The Fappening by lucm · · Score: 1

    I'm sure all those celebs who got their nude pics leaked agree with you. Because clearly "being secure" is one all-encompassing thing that you can use to bullshit your iPropaganda.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  56. We need a new state w/o a federal government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody complaining just about has little excuse. Your not doing anything about the problem. The only real solution is to gather enough die-hard liberty lovers together in one place where we can organize independence, protests, and eventual succession. In the mean time there is a lot that can be done at the state level. There are a lot of technical people partaking in the Free State Project and there are a lot of people actually moving. 20,000 signers and 10% have already moved. We're only a few months into this too! I'm moving in a few days. Bought a house and everything.

  57. Re:As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by lucm · · Score: 1

    Why are we paying people to ponder such things??

    Article I of the US Constitution.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress.

    I suspect that you're talking about the first amendment instead, which is not the same thing at all. Maybe you should learn the basics before quoting the Constitution.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. Shorten it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should just shorten it:

    "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company."

  60. no winners here by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    It's like Apple, the FBI, and Congress are vying for the title of "most harmful to personal privacy and security in 2016". I guess the year is still young; maybe others will still get into the game.

  61. RE: No Apply Phones for US Gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just one more reason the US Government doesn't get it. Privacy should be a priority for any government employee making an Apply phone a MUST.

  62. Re:As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I suspect you missed the original question...the legislature is the body that we pay to think about what the laws ought to be and then write, review, and (maybe) pass them. And if we're lucky, they do it in that order.

  63. Why only tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we going to see him legislate against the providers of the weapons that made it so easy to kill people?

  64. Another reason to dislike Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is where this Jolly character is based.

    Funny, I thought extortion was illegal, yet here is an elected official trying to extort Apple.

  65. No Taxpayer Support for David Jolly or District 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps "taxpayers" that disagree with David Jolly should consider not supporting businesses in his District 13, Florida. Per Wikipedia this is a one county district. Pinellas county, home to Clearwater and St. Petersburg Fla. Choose not to purchase from businesses that voted him into office.

  66. Re:As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    I only cited the Constitution, I didn't quote it. I meant simply that getting rid of Congress (as opposed to its current members) would require amending the Constitution. As this requires Congressional approval, I'm not holding my breath.

  67. Re:Not stupid, just knowing their constituents wel by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The reality is that most of our elected representatives aren't stupid, they just know exactly what will get them reelected.

    Yes well, this is exactly the point I try to get across. There is a very high level of stupidity and antipathy. Since it is not in the elected officials, we need to go quite a bit further upstream, to a place very few people will acknowledge or accept. Hence the question, even if rhetorical.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  68. Re:Bill of Attainder==legislation targeting 1 enti by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Well, there is a bit of difference between stopping charitable grants to an organization versus a boycott.

  69. mute point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't this the phone that had a passcode of 0000?

  70. How Does Accountability Work? by ytene · · Score: 1

    Not being a US citizen I have no idea how this might work in practice, but... The gentleman who has just called for the government to blacklist Apple products was presumably elected to his post to represent a geographic area of the US. Can those same citizens vote him out of office if they decide that he is not representing his constituents properly? Obviously this is a broader question related to the democratic process, but it occurs to me that a process that allows this bill to be put forward could be used to do something much more sinister, or even outright dangerous. How does the process protect the People from a rogue elected official. What happens if someone is elected claiming to act one way and then does the opposite?

    1. Re:How Does Accountability Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the process protect the People from a rogue elected official.

      Most of the time, it doesn't. The mantra is to vote another crook in who perhaps won't ream you as badly as the last, but as far as accountability, most incumbents get elected year after year, and only being caught raping a dead child is enough to be ousted from office anymore.

      Occasionally the courts will step in, but that is generally rare, and it may take decades to get a final ruling; long after someone has profited nicely and gotten a job consulting for some multi-national.

      Welcome to the difficulties of representative government.

  71. Bullies by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy. But apparently Apple didn't break any law. Perhaps it would actually break a law by complying to the request.

    There are enough security agencies and services that could have done their homework by gathering and processed intelligence. But they didn't. And now they go around begging others for answers. Much like cheating on your tests. Do your homework and stop whining, I'd say.

    Much along the lines of VW cheating at benchmarks. Coming with an absolutely crap emissions test, missing the point that engines suddenly perform well and then be dismayed that the tests were so easy to cheat on. It doesn't take a scientist to point out the stupidity of the tests.

    To all governments: Wake up! Do you homework. And stop bullying others to do it for you!

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is .. apple could probably unlock a phone .. but the government would need a court order.. a judge.. maybe even a warrant to do that.. and apple would probably comply. The Government is just being greedy and wanting all the keys to all the castles. Encryption and privacy obviously has someone scared. Take this privacy away from American citizens, it's not like it's going away elsewhere.. Germans.. Chinese, Russians.. they will be doing quite well.. and frankly it will just turn my buying power overseas.

    2. Re:Bullies by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy. But apparently Apple didn't break any law. Perhaps it would actually break a law by complying to the request.

      What actually happened: The FBI went to judge with an ex parte motion to order Apple to help unlocking the phone. "Ex parte" motion means that Apple was not heard by the judge before the judge issued the motion. Obviously in such a case Apple has the right to tell the judge why that motion shouldn't be issued and to reconsider.

      Apparently this idiot thinks that Apple should be punished for doing something that any sane person would think they are entitled to. Have their side of the story heard before the judge makes a decision. In other words, the man shows an utter and despicable disrespect for law and order.

      There's another even more disturbing aspect to this: If Apple refuses to do as the FBI wants to tell them, wouldn't you think they might have a reason for that? Wouldn't you check what these reasons might be?

      In all these discussions, what I have never seen anyone saying is "We want this phone unlocked; we listened to the reasons why Apple doesn't want to help, but here are reasons why unlocking the phone is more important than Apple's objection".

  72. No Voter Support for Enemies of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be a movement to have no voter support for the enemies of privacy.

  73. Re: As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amendments do not require approval of created via an Article V Convention. Congress has no authority as to what Amendments may be proposed.

  74. In the intrests of national security.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well this is probably a bright move considering all their crying and tears over getting apple to add a back door into all their products. I wouldn't want a secret service/doj/fbi/nsa employee to be using a device with a KNOWN backdoor in it.. Cmon man.. the Chinese will have that back door before the white house will .. and they're the ones trying to put it there.. Get a life guys serious.. Cry moar.. go apple.. (yeah I said it)

  75. Re:When by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    1776.

    Next!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  76. Popcorn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What with Trump becoming president and this its deffo popcorn time

  77. Freedom of speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Code is speech. Forced code is coerced speech, by the government. End of story.

  78. Just pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure I'm not the only one that noticed how fishy this is. To me it would appear apple is going to comply and the government will prevent governement officials from being backdoored (as this has been brought up as a reason not to back door the devices) by not using flawed devices.

  79. How quickly we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently we have forgotten how the government uses lies to protect themselves. The nsa for instance was never brought up and we were lied to in court about its use.

    This situation Appears to me to be a huge hone pot to fool the masses.

  80. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not built here

    They are working hard to cripple the security on it

    A perfect tool for keep things under control

    Kind of a sad picture actualy

  81. "Subsidy?" I don't think he knows what the word me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies that have markets outside the government are not, in fact, being "subsidized" by taxpayers unless one believes the act of purchasing from a going concern is a "subsidy." Under that definition nearly every government expenditure is a "subsidy."

  82. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about not buying from corporations that shelter their profits overseas and pay 0% - %2 in taxes in the U.S. If you have a dual citizenship, U.S and Canadian for example, you are taxed by the U.S for earning income in Canada even if you keep the money there and never bring it into the U.S. Why is it that Corporations are allowed to keep their profits overseas and U.S citizens can't do the same? That's right, because this country is ruled by the special interest(oligarchies) who are no different then those running Russia.

  83. Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares, this Country is going into the shit hole anyway and there is nothing we can do about it. We are just too brainwashed to fight for our own self preservation anyway.

  84. Whatever it took... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today.

    Except banning the weapons that were used by the terrorists.

  85. No Exploitation of 9/11 Act by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

    I'm proposing my own new legislation, the No Exploitation of 9/11 Act. According to this act, any politician who tries to justify their legislation by invoking the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001 will be immediately removed from, and forbidden from ever again holding, any public office. Goddamned vultures.

  86. Re:As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by lucm · · Score: 1

    I meant simply that getting rid of Congress (as opposed to its current members) would require amending the Constitution.

    It could also be done with Stormtroopers. It has been done at least once, a long time ago.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  87. If the FBI designs a backdoor for apple... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    ...wouldn't the government want to stop using Apple products because they aren't secure?

    When you weaken encryption, you have to imagine what the *bad guys* will do - steal the right government iphone, and now you've got classified intel that can kill people.

    Security, liberty, something something, lose both...?

  88. Bring back the real GOP then by lucm · · Score: 1

    You can thank Bill Clinton for that. Once he made a joke of the Presidency with his sex scandals, the religious right (which had always stayed away from politics until then) got mad and got organized, and see what they brought in the oval office.

    But now there's an opportunity to bring things in balance, and believe it or not it's Trump. Elect a Republican that doesn't cater to the Bible crowd and the party will cleanse itself real quick of that religious stain. Plus, if you want to see the foreign policy simplified and the country be less involved in other countries affairs, he's the man for the job.

    If five years ago you'd have told me that I would be pro-Trump today, I would have laughed. But back then there was still some illusion that honest GOP candidates like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson still existed.

    Well, at least the New Jersey guy who looks like the mob guy in the Simpsons is out of the picture.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Bring back the real GOP then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the religious right (which had always stayed away from politics until then) got mad and got organized, and see what they brought in the oval office.

      Are you fucking kidding? The religious right have always been about politics. The "right" part of "religious right" is a political term.

      They've been politically active at least since Reagan gave them an open-door policy in the Republican party, and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson instructed their followers to vote Republican.

      If you want to go way back, the fundamentalists in the early part of the 20th century were the "religious right" of their day and pushed legislation like anti-miscegenation laws, Prohibition, and the anti-evolution teaching law Scopes was convicted of violating, and that was in 1925.

    2. Re:Bring back the real GOP then by lucm · · Score: 1

      Name one president in the last 100 years that was elected by the Christian right (before Bush Jr).

      If you say Reagan you're rewriting history.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Bring back the real GOP then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None. Bush got close to 50% of the vote and the Christian right is a small portion of that.

  89. Re: As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by vilanye · · Score: 1

    Proposed amendment have to come from Congress and get a 2/3 vote from both houses before it can go to the states.

    Article V

            The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

  90. Yellow-bellied yanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror."

    Yes, they did. It was terrifying! Since then, "terrorism" has dominated political concerns in the US. Do you USians realise that you've displaced the French as the cowards of the world?

    Jolly's is a good name for a clown (well, maybe not in the US, you guy's are scared of clowns too aren't ya?).

  91. Re:I thought it had got as silly as it could, but. by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    Evidently, yes...

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  92. Is there something in the water in Washington by fredrated · · Score: 1

    that makes politicians dumber than shit?

  93. About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one support this legislation!! But it just doesn't go far enough, they need to ban all products that don't have built in government back doors!

    Think about it, the government can only buy equipment with back doors. Of course it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when in a matter of a few weeks these back doors are exploited by some 14 year old. Then we the public can site back and monitor all the communication and goings on of our official without all the lies and back room deals. Ah, an honest and open government, about time.

    Personally, I'm sticking to equipment with good encryption and without back doors, even if it sparks fear in my government that I might be doing something I shouldn't. As Thomas Jefferson said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

    Ballsy move if I ever saw one, hats off to you sir!

    1. Re:About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Thomas Jefferson said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

      Good quote, but it's not Jefferson's.

  94. Re: As much as I hate the Ifone and what it stands by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, but I'm still not holding my breath. We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787.

  95. Gov't and Apple: by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    Gov't: "Help us break into the iPhone, or we will never buy your products again!" Apple: "Go fuck yourselves" Me: (actualy respecting Apple for growing a pair, and telling the arrogant brownshirts to go stick it where the sun don't shine)