there's a bookmarks "tab" on the new tab page, up at the top: Speed dial, +, Bookmarks, History. Clicking on those lets you view your history or bookmarks in that tab similar to the opera:history and opera:bookmarks pages used to
while Apple's doesn't. The fact that Apple can somehow push software onto an existing iPhone that allows the federal government to decrypt the data on that phone without the key seems like a fundamental flaw in iOS.
This is not what's happening here. Apple might be able to push software onto an existing iPhone that allows the federal government to attempt as many PIN unlocks as it wants, without being time-limited or erasing data.
The only fundamental flaw with an iPhone here is anyone thinking that a 4 digit PIN might protect the data on it.
This is both why the FBI is asking Apple to do this and why people should be outraged about the FBI asking Apple to do this.
They do not ask Apple to modify the firmware on all iPhones they are selling. At my sense, Apple is better to comply than let the DoJ grant the right to the FBI and/or NSA to proceed with the modification of the firmware themselves.
Why would the FBI and/or NSA need the DoJ's permission to do this? Why do they not already have it? If they could do it, they would have done it, and wouldn't have to deal with Apple at all. This would be a non-story, there would be no writ.
It needs to be signed by Apple. If Apple creates new, legitimate firmware which bypasses these security precautions, what do you think happens after? The answers should be obvious:
(1) the FBI is going to come back again and again, except with precedent, or, (2) the FBI is now going to be able to use this firmware on iphones other than the San Bernardino shooter's iphone.
The rest is pure bullshit from Apple, we already know these safeguards can be circumvented by anyone with enough time, money and knowledge to modify the firmware.
Your thinking on this is completely backwards. If you believe that these safeguards can be circumvented, then this is pure bullshit from the FBI. Given that anyone can modify the firmware, then they do not need Apple's help.
There's a distinction between civilians, terrorists, and military combatants. Mobsters are criminals, in a criminal venture most often for their own profit. They set up power structures through violence and corruption. The violence is almost always 100% targeted against individuals standing against them.
Military combatants are an organized structure who can behave pretty similarly to mobsters: they kill and use violence as a means of implementing their political goals. The key difference is what political goals miltaries and other governmental organizations have and the manner in which they are determined. Governments, unlike mobsters, at least nominally have the will of the people backing them. Militaries who do not have political power are rebels.
Terrorists have political goals and kill people at random in order to garner support, attention, and more influence. You may notice when, looking at the various terrorist organizations in post-WW2 history, that almost none of them have actually accomplished any of their goals, which seems obvious in hindsight considering their tactics of killing random people rather than actually attempting to accomplish any of their goals.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda are not equivalent. The Taliban are a dysfunctional and authoritarian government organization. They have ranged from mobsters to a mostly legitimate but oppressive government in the last 3 decades. While they are often brutal, oppressive, and ruthless, they do generally do not try to kill random people -- even when they do, they are usually targeting a semi- or completely legitimate target, in military terms, such as military bases or intelligence services. They definitely kill random people there, but it's hard to argue how many of those people can truly be "random" compared to arguing whether their rebellion is justified at all.
al-Qaeda has a few rebellious affiliations, but by and large they have conducted mostly terrorist actions: killing random, unaffiliated civilians for attention. Flying a plane into the WTC is terrorism. Bombing embassies is terrorism. Blowing up airliners is terrorism. Exploding car bombs in crowded marketplaces and mosques is terrorism. Attacking a military base is rebellion.
This purportedly prevents backing it up to the iCloud, though I don't understand the relevance of that. If someone can get in, won't they be able to see whatever they want?
The argument is that, if the phone had been untouched, it might have backed up to iCloud automatically, and nobody would need access to the phone itself. Apple can grant whoever they want access to his Apple accounts simply by changing the password, but the phone's PIN to unlock is either more difficult or impossible to retrieve.
The refusal is not a PR stunt. Publishing an open letter may be, but it's not one that can possibly be used as any kind of justification arguing against their behavior -- it's not marketing for increased sales as much as it is an appeal for attention to an injustice which they might be compelled to accept with the full force of the US Federal Government. It's a PR stunt anyone reading this website should be grateful for, so that this injustice and the US government's despicable behavior can be properly viewed by American citizens.
having been presented with a valid warrant
They have very obviously been helping the FBI with their investigation. They have complied with all warrants, and have probably volunteered more information than they needed to. What they have not complied with is a judicial writ ordering them to compromise the integrity of their operating systems. Stop spreading FUD, retard.
If they're hoping to appeal a 225 year old statute as unconstitutional with a 4-4 SCOTUS, umm... Good luck with that.
The most unbelievable horseshit retarded thing in your post. There is not a "4-4 SCOTUS", there is a SCOTUS, and the overwhelming majority of cases they decide are unaninmous or near unaninmous. Why on earth you would think that the perceived political affiliations of the SCOTUS would overrule their jurisprudence and good sense, let alone why you think this would matter more because the statue is old, is unbelievably fucking retarded. What do either of those have to do with anything? Why would Apple shrug and just give up because an old man died?
Seriously hoping I fell for a troll here, because your childish understanding of our legal and political system, and how you present it as having shaped your opinions on what to do, is un-fucking-believable.
But in a legal brief, Apple acknowledged that the phone in the meth case was running version 7 of the iPhone operating system, which means the company can access it. “For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode locked iOS device,” the company said in a court brief.
Two sentences later retrieving "certain categories of unencrypted data" becomes "cracking the iphone":
But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government.
Here's the BBC chiming in with the "if you agree with Apple, you support beheading veterans" angle: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
"If a court issued a warrant in the UK or United States to search somebody's house, you wouldn't stop them, you would allow them in - why should a smartphone be any different?
Gee I don't know, Ray, but I'm going to bank on houses being made out of wood, sweat, and tiers compared to my smartphone, which is more of a mathematics problem than a physical object.
The technical gap between those working on cases like this, those writing the laws, and those who are just the end-users operating devices like smartphones is large, but it's much, much more than just marketing at this point. This story wouldn't even be in the news if the government hadn't already bullied these companies into complying in the first place, hitting them with the one-two of "you're going to cause another 9/11" and "we're already reading everything anyway, don't make it harder for us" as a fait accompli.
This is one of the primary reasons for things such as the 4th amendment in the first place -- if the government only conducts reasonable searches, then people can be more trusting of the government only conducting reasonable searches. If the government oversteps its authority, and people lose some of their trust in the government to act in good faith, then searches which would otherwise be reasonable and routine start to meet resistance, especially when it is potentially costing giant corporations millions or billions of dollars.
As I get older, I'm beginning to hate people who repeat these kinds of analogies more and more. It is simply not analogous. All of the hypothetical scenarios provided are nothing like asking Apple to produce an FBI-specific iOS capable of being brute-forced.
Apple probably helps law enforcement conduct reasonable searches all the time, but doing so in this case is more analogous to creating some kind of sci-fi time ripple that instantaneously retrofits (future-fits?) every single other person's home, past and future, to be constructed only of balsawood or whatever is easy enough for some knucklehead to brute his way through. Working with the law enforcement agencies in the past in decades past did not also simultaneously blast legislation through the Congress outlawing everyone in the future from having the same kind of housing, or safe, or hidey-hole where they kept their information that was too hard for the feds to get to. That is essentially what the FBI is asking Apple to do here.
Not only that, but the government has shown that they have no real limit as to what they will ask for. This encryption is too difficult and prevents the FBI from doing their jobs, and why shouldn't they be able to do their jobs when they can just read all of Syed Fuckhead's text messages thanks to the NSA, anyway? Well guess what retards, Apple might never have started default-encrypting everything if it hadn't been made painfully aware to everyone in the world that the NSA was illegally snooping on all of your messages in the first place. The encryption arms race is spearheaded by the NSA, and the FBI should forward all of their crybaby memos to them instead of thanking them for being given the ill-gotten gains from their massive surveillance programs.
That's also completely ignoring the fact that it might not even be possible for Apple to do what they want done, since it's not clear that Apple could update the OS as requested on an already locked device.
Maybe they should ask one of the 5,000,000 various reporters, journalists, and random people eating popsicles if they saw what looked like an iPhone passcode written down somewhere in their house while it was being ransacked live on television a day or two after the attack.
The guy was under house arrest in the English countryside for something like 2 years prior to him squatting in Ecuador's embassy. Don't you think that's enough time to hatch up a plan? Or, you know, actually arresting him, instead of politely asking him not to leave his cozy country mansion?
No he isn't. The Swedes have had years to interview him, even on their "own soil" in London. This isn't about the sex issue with that CIA woman, it's about the US getting "their man," regardless of the cost to other nations.
If Sweden with so concerned, they could even said someone from their embassy down the road in a taxi to conduct their questioning. So, despite this "case" being years old, they won't make any efforts to do it. Why?
How can you say all of this while simultaneously accusing the US of wishing to have the UK capture him and send him to America? If they wanted to do that, then they, too, could have already done that.
It's 100% insane to believe that Sweden has had all the time in the world to interview him, but that the combined powers of the US and UK did not have ample opportunity to arrest him, especially if they were focused on "getting their man" regardless of the cost or consequences.
I shouldnt need permission from the government to rent out a room.......Thats fucking insane.
People always say things like this until their neighbors rent out every room, cupboard, and closet in their house to 100 landscapers. Then they call the government!
the US uses landmines almost exclusively because it has pledged to protect South Korea from being invaded by North Korea again. The Korean DMZ is filled with landmines, which would slow down a DPRK attack enough for there still to be things to fight over afterwards. Estimates of North Korea's army efficacy range from barely functional to mediocre, but what they do have plenty of is manpower, who showed in the original Korean war (along with the Chinese) that masses of human wave attacks using almost unlimited manpower can be effective even against modern weapons.
As far as I know this is the only place the US uses landmines anywhere, except maybe for training.
Even forgetting that, your point is nonsense. Landmines are the immobile suicide bombers of autonomous weapons systems, and they can be effectively cleaned up. How can you do that to futuristic killbots, which could be mobile and more effective thanks to better weapons systems? Either the systems are effective or they can be disabled easily. The tedium of clearing landmines is what makes them effective, and it's also what makes them difficult to deal with.
What do you think autonomous killer robots would be like?
But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes.
No, it's not. You're a fucking moron for thinking so.
Terrorism involves killing people. Specifically, it involves killing *random* people. Occupying a building is not terrorism, it is civil disobedience. Unless they were planning on renaming the place the Alamo and fighting until the very last man, there is no conceivable way you can believe this to actually be terrorism, and advocating for it to be called that is a disgusting injustice where you are literally calling for the state to murder your fellow citizens. Considering they were arrested peaceably, this doesn't seem to have been the case.
It's even more astonishing that you would quote the UN (???????) with a definition which plainly does not fit what they were doing and definitions for a law regarding the
Requirement of annual country reports on terrorism
. How is that even relevant? You don't know the law, you don't know what words mean, and you don't seem to have a sensible grasp on what justice is or should be. What exactly do you know?
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
Anyone who thinks these people are TERRORISTS needs to have their brain adjusted. Mexican cartels murdering judges or leaving decapitated bodies laying around is a good example of violent coercion and intimidation and could only arguably be considered terrorist organizations. These people certainly have not been. The kind of fucking retard logic displayed here could categorize black sit-ins in the 1960s as being terrorist actions. It's insanity.
Well, I guess we could discuss the possible reasons why their speakers aren't loud enough? That's nerdy, right?
Please don't unfairly criticize the skills of our engineering brethren stuck in North Korea. It has nothing to do with lack of electricity, or proper materials, or whatever.
It's because the inverse-square law dictates that the South Koreans broadcasting propaganda to the North must broadcast at a much greater volume than the North Koreans broadcasting propaganda to the North Koreans need to do.
Or maybe, he died of a brain bleed or brain swelling brought on by being roughed up my the cops. Or maybe, the cops went to his house and put him out of their misery to shut him up There are lots of possibilities. Everyone should demand a thorough investigation by an independent (from the SFPD) investigator.
It's possible, sure. But you're 100% wrong that "everyone" should demand a thorough investigation. Everyone should be following the wishes of his family here, whether that be them demanding a thorough investigation or whether it means they want to remember him as the good, productive, inspiring man that he was for decades before his suicide.
His family has more reason to see this investigated than anyone, so if they are content in believing it was an unsuspicious suicide, which is what it sounds like, then you probably should be too.
reply to AC below:
Nobody is suggesting his family murdered him.
People are suggesting that his family is partaking in the cover up by not demanding an investigation and "whitewashing" the announcements of his death. To suggest that they would do this for anything other than benign reasons absolutely is suggesting that they were involved in, complicit with, or are helping to cover up his murder. It's insane and incredibly disrespectful both to him and to his family.
He threatened to kill himself. And then he threatened to kill himself again because his "career was over".
While successful criminal charges may be life-changing, they are not automatically an end to your career, especially not a unique and special one as Mr. Murdock had. His career was one which he created for himself, which he was the main driving force of, and which was based on his accomplishments and reputation in the Linux and Open Source communities where it was basically unassailable, as should be obvious from a lot of the replies about his death.
There's a drastic leap of logic here needed to believe any of this to be true.
You think assaulting an officer is a trivial crime?
Well, instead of just emotionally asserting "facts", as you seem to want to do, let's take a look and see how serious it is. A quick google search reveals that:
Battery on a peace / police officer is typically a misdemeanor in California law. The potential penalties are up to one (1) year in county jail, and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000).4
But if the battery causes an injury requiring medical treatment, then this crime becomes a wobbler (that is, a crime that may be charged as a misdemeanor or a California felony).
If it is charged as a felony, battery on a peace officer carries a potential sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) or three (3) years in county jail, and/or a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).5
Seeing as no police required medical treatment, and that the description of his arrest(s) and treatment don't seem to be out of the ordinary, he wasn't likely to be charged with a felony and wasn't likely to see jailtime. Considering he was in good standing with the community and had no prior arrests (?), he was probably going to receive IF FOUND GUILTY some combination of probation, fines, community service, or mental health treatment. Do you consider that to be "serious"? Or worth taking your life over?
The entire argument against this being anything other than a tragic suicide rests on making up "facts" and emotionally appealing to the state being able to do anything it wants, with the proof being the same thing as the question in the first place: that they just murdered Ian Murdock and are conspiring with his family members to cover it up.
I'm going to go with option (b) here, which is that his family desires privacy because he tragically took his own life in a way that never needed to happen and they don't want to drag his name through the mud. His family has more reasons than anybody to pursue the truth here.
he probably suffered torture at the hand of police.
Torture? He didn't even suggest that. It sounds like he was arrested against his will. He suggested that the arrest was unnecessary or illegal, not that there was torture.
It's certainly fair to ask why, but presumably his family has done that or feels it is unnecessary because the why is already obvious. I'd rather not see his decades of effort bettering society being minimized if he had some kind of substance abuse or emotional issues and ended up taking his own life.
I'd say it was pretty unhinged. He threatened to kill himself because he thought his career was over, which he presumably thought was because of a bogus arrest?
No, there is every reason to honor their wishes. His family presumably wants privacy because they don't want to see anyone's memory of him be tarnished, and most likely that's because he obviously committed suicide in a non-suspicious manner after having some kind of mental breakdown. Which may have been the culmination of some kind of ongoing series of mental breakdowns that they'd rather not have him be remembered by.
The guy threatened suicide, and ranted about the police, and then stated that "my career is over now, so I'll be gone soon". It's fucking idiotic to suggest that the family is in on a police coverup of his murder or whatever the fuck crazy ideas people are having all because they might inherit some dollars, or that they're threatened, or that they just feel so terrible about him being murdered that they don't want to ever think about it again.
The guy's last wish was to kill himself. I wish it hadn't happened, because he did a hell of a lot for Linux. Doing a little bit for his wife and kids and family in return is the least anyone could do. Go fuck yourself if you're some kind of conspiratorial moron who would use his name to feed your fantasies without a SINGLE piece of evidence otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
there's a bookmarks "tab" on the new tab page, up at the top: Speed dial, +, Bookmarks, History. Clicking on those lets you view your history or bookmarks in that tab similar to the opera:history and opera:bookmarks pages used to
fyi
Vivaldi can install extensions directly from the Chrome web store, just like Chrome does.
while Apple's doesn't. The fact that Apple can somehow push software onto an existing iPhone that allows the federal government to decrypt the data on that phone without the key seems like a fundamental flaw in iOS.
This is not what's happening here. Apple might be able to push software onto an existing iPhone that allows the federal government to attempt as many PIN unlocks as it wants, without being time-limited or erasing data.
The only fundamental flaw with an iPhone here is anyone thinking that a 4 digit PIN might protect the data on it.
This is both why the FBI is asking Apple to do this and why people should be outraged about the FBI asking Apple to do this.
The auto reset was executed by a county information technology employee, according to a federal official.
FBI: we can't get into his phone, can you reset his password so that we can take a look at his iCloud?
County IT guy: sure thing boss *clicks*
They do not ask Apple to modify the firmware on all iPhones they are selling.
At my sense, Apple is better to comply than let the DoJ grant the right to the FBI and/or NSA to proceed with the modification of the firmware themselves.
Why would the FBI and/or NSA need the DoJ's permission to do this? Why do they not already have it? If they could do it, they would have done it, and wouldn't have to deal with Apple at all. This would be a non-story, there would be no writ.
It needs to be signed by Apple. If Apple creates new, legitimate firmware which bypasses these security precautions, what do you think happens after? The answers should be obvious:
(1) the FBI is going to come back again and again, except with precedent,
or,
(2) the FBI is now going to be able to use this firmware on iphones other than the San Bernardino shooter's iphone.
The rest is pure bullshit from Apple, we already know these safeguards can be circumvented by anyone with enough time, money and knowledge to modify the firmware.
Your thinking on this is completely backwards. If you believe that these safeguards can be circumvented, then this is pure bullshit from the FBI. Given that anyone can modify the firmware, then they do not need Apple's help.
There's a distinction between civilians, terrorists, and military combatants. Mobsters are criminals, in a criminal venture most often for their own profit. They set up power structures through violence and corruption. The violence is almost always 100% targeted against individuals standing against them.
Military combatants are an organized structure who can behave pretty similarly to mobsters: they kill and use violence as a means of implementing their political goals. The key difference is what political goals miltaries and other governmental organizations have and the manner in which they are determined. Governments, unlike mobsters, at least nominally have the will of the people backing them. Militaries who do not have political power are rebels.
Terrorists have political goals and kill people at random in order to garner support, attention, and more influence. You may notice when, looking at the various terrorist organizations in post-WW2 history, that almost none of them have actually accomplished any of their goals, which seems obvious in hindsight considering their tactics of killing random people rather than actually attempting to accomplish any of their goals.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda are not equivalent. The Taliban are a dysfunctional and authoritarian government organization. They have ranged from mobsters to a mostly legitimate but oppressive government in the last 3 decades. While they are often brutal, oppressive, and ruthless, they do generally do not try to kill random people -- even when they do, they are usually targeting a semi- or completely legitimate target, in military terms, such as military bases or intelligence services. They definitely kill random people there, but it's hard to argue how many of those people can truly be "random" compared to arguing whether their rebellion is justified at all.
al-Qaeda has a few rebellious affiliations, but by and large they have conducted mostly terrorist actions: killing random, unaffiliated civilians for attention. Flying a plane into the WTC is terrorism. Bombing embassies is terrorism. Blowing up airliners is terrorism. Exploding car bombs in crowded marketplaces and mosques is terrorism. Attacking a military base is rebellion.
This purportedly prevents backing it up to the iCloud, though I don't understand the relevance of that. If someone can get in, won't they be able to see whatever they want?
The argument is that, if the phone had been untouched, it might have backed up to iCloud automatically, and nobody would need access to the phone itself. Apple can grant whoever they want access to his Apple accounts simply by changing the password, but the phone's PIN to unlock is either more difficult or impossible to retrieve.
What kind of horseshit retard post is this?
The refusal is not a PR stunt. Publishing an open letter may be, but it's not one that can possibly be used as any kind of justification arguing against their behavior -- it's not marketing for increased sales as much as it is an appeal for attention to an injustice which they might be compelled to accept with the full force of the US Federal Government. It's a PR stunt anyone reading this website should be grateful for, so that this injustice and the US government's despicable behavior can be properly viewed by American citizens.
having been presented with a valid warrant
They have very obviously been helping the FBI with their investigation. They have complied with all warrants, and have probably volunteered more information than they needed to. What they have not complied with is a judicial writ ordering them to compromise the integrity of their operating systems. Stop spreading FUD, retard.
If they're hoping to appeal a 225 year old statute as unconstitutional with a 4-4 SCOTUS, umm... Good luck with that.
The most unbelievable horseshit retarded thing in your post. There is not a "4-4 SCOTUS", there is a SCOTUS, and the overwhelming majority of cases they decide are unaninmous or near unaninmous. Why on earth you would think that the perceived political affiliations of the SCOTUS would overrule their jurisprudence and good sense, let alone why you think this would matter more because the statue is old, is unbelievably fucking retarded. What do either of those have to do with anything? Why would Apple shrug and just give up because an old man died?
Seriously hoping I fell for a troll here, because your childish understanding of our legal and political system, and how you present it as having shaped your opinions on what to do, is un-fucking-believable.
it's already happening: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
But in a legal brief, Apple acknowledged that the phone in the meth case was running version 7 of the iPhone operating system, which means the company can access it. “For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode locked iOS device,” the company said in a court brief.
Two sentences later retrieving "certain categories of unencrypted data" becomes "cracking the iphone":
But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government.
Here's the BBC chiming in with the "if you agree with Apple, you support beheading veterans" angle: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
"If a court issued a warrant in the UK or United States to search somebody's house, you wouldn't stop them, you would allow them in - why should a smartphone be any different?
Gee I don't know, Ray, but I'm going to bank on houses being made out of wood, sweat, and tiers compared to my smartphone, which is more of a mathematics problem than a physical object.
The technical gap between those working on cases like this, those writing the laws, and those who are just the end-users operating devices like smartphones is large, but it's much, much more than just marketing at this point. This story wouldn't even be in the news if the government hadn't already bullied these companies into complying in the first place, hitting them with the one-two of "you're going to cause another 9/11" and "we're already reading everything anyway, don't make it harder for us" as a fait accompli.
This is one of the primary reasons for things such as the 4th amendment in the first place -- if the government only conducts reasonable searches, then people can be more trusting of the government only conducting reasonable searches. If the government oversteps its authority, and people lose some of their trust in the government to act in good faith, then searches which would otherwise be reasonable and routine start to meet resistance, especially when it is potentially costing giant corporations millions or billions of dollars.
As I get older, I'm beginning to hate people who repeat these kinds of analogies more and more. It is simply not analogous. All of the hypothetical scenarios provided are nothing like asking Apple to produce an FBI-specific iOS capable of being brute-forced.
Apple probably helps law enforcement conduct reasonable searches all the time, but doing so in this case is more analogous to creating some kind of sci-fi time ripple that instantaneously retrofits (future-fits?) every single other person's home, past and future, to be constructed only of balsawood or whatever is easy enough for some knucklehead to brute his way through. Working with the law enforcement agencies in the past in decades past did not also simultaneously blast legislation through the Congress outlawing everyone in the future from having the same kind of housing, or safe, or hidey-hole where they kept their information that was too hard for the feds to get to. That is essentially what the FBI is asking Apple to do here.
Not only that, but the government has shown that they have no real limit as to what they will ask for. This encryption is too difficult and prevents the FBI from doing their jobs, and why shouldn't they be able to do their jobs when they can just read all of Syed Fuckhead's text messages thanks to the NSA, anyway? Well guess what retards, Apple might never have started default-encrypting everything if it hadn't been made painfully aware to everyone in the world that the NSA was illegally snooping on all of your messages in the first place. The encryption arms race is spearheaded by the NSA, and the FBI should forward all of their crybaby memos to them instead of thanking them for being given the ill-gotten gains from their massive surveillance programs.
That's also completely ignoring the fact that it might not even be possible for Apple to do what they want done, since it's not clear that Apple could update the OS as requested on an already locked device.
Maybe they should ask one of the 5,000,000 various reporters, journalists, and random people eating popsicles if they saw what looked like an iPhone passcode written down somewhere in their house while it was being ransacked live on television a day or two after the attack.
The guy was under house arrest in the English countryside for something like 2 years prior to him squatting in Ecuador's embassy. Don't you think that's enough time to hatch up a plan? Or, you know, actually arresting him, instead of politely asking him not to leave his cozy country mansion?
No he isn't. The Swedes have had years to interview him, even on their "own soil" in London. This isn't about the sex issue with that CIA woman, it's about the US getting "their man," regardless of the cost to other nations.
If Sweden with so concerned, they could even said someone from their embassy down the road in a taxi to conduct their questioning. So, despite this "case" being years old, they won't make any efforts to do it. Why?
How can you say all of this while simultaneously accusing the US of wishing to have the UK capture him and send him to America? If they wanted to do that, then they, too, could have already done that.
It's 100% insane to believe that Sweden has had all the time in the world to interview him, but that the combined powers of the US and UK did not have ample opportunity to arrest him, especially if they were focused on "getting their man" regardless of the cost or consequences.
If you didn't mean to reply to him, then you're welcome to time yourself too. We can make an experiment out of it.
I shouldnt need permission from the government to rent out a room.......Thats fucking insane.
People always say things like this until their neighbors rent out every room, cupboard, and closet in their house to 100 landscapers. Then they call the government!
The Government won't come and say, "we have too many towers now, you can't put one up".
Are you joking? Try setting up a cell tower. Bring a stopwatch and let us know how quickly you end up in federal prison.
the US uses landmines almost exclusively because it has pledged to protect South Korea from being invaded by North Korea again. The Korean DMZ is filled with landmines, which would slow down a DPRK attack enough for there still to be things to fight over afterwards. Estimates of North Korea's army efficacy range from barely functional to mediocre, but what they do have plenty of is manpower, who showed in the original Korean war (along with the Chinese) that masses of human wave attacks using almost unlimited manpower can be effective even against modern weapons.
As far as I know this is the only place the US uses landmines anywhere, except maybe for training.
Even forgetting that, your point is nonsense. Landmines are the immobile suicide bombers of autonomous weapons systems, and they can be effectively cleaned up. How can you do that to futuristic killbots, which could be mobile and more effective thanks to better weapons systems? Either the systems are effective or they can be disabled easily. The tedium of clearing landmines is what makes them effective, and it's also what makes them difficult to deal with.
What do you think autonomous killer robots would be like?
But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes.
No, it's not. You're a fucking moron for thinking so.
Terrorism involves killing people. Specifically, it involves killing *random* people. Occupying a building is not terrorism, it is civil disobedience. Unless they were planning on renaming the place the Alamo and fighting until the very last man, there is no conceivable way you can believe this to actually be terrorism, and advocating for it to be called that is a disgusting injustice where you are literally calling for the state to murder your fellow citizens. Considering they were arrested peaceably, this doesn't seem to have been the case.
It's even more astonishing that you would quote the UN (???????) with a definition which plainly does not fit what they were doing and definitions for a law regarding the
Requirement of annual country reports on terrorism
. How is that even relevant? You don't know the law, you don't know what words mean, and you don't seem to have a sensible grasp on what justice is or should be. What exactly do you know?
Here is a more relevant definition of terrorism (which also plainly does not fit): https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/i...
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
Anyone who thinks these people are TERRORISTS needs to have their brain adjusted. Mexican cartels murdering judges or leaving decapitated bodies laying around is a good example of violent coercion and intimidation and could only arguably be considered terrorist organizations. These people certainly have not been. The kind of fucking retard logic displayed here could categorize black sit-ins in the 1960s as being terrorist actions. It's insanity.
Well, I guess we could discuss the possible reasons why their speakers aren't loud enough? That's nerdy, right?
Please don't unfairly criticize the skills of our engineering brethren stuck in North Korea. It has nothing to do with lack of electricity, or proper materials, or whatever.
It's because the inverse-square law dictates that the South Koreans broadcasting propaganda to the North must broadcast at a much greater volume than the North Koreans broadcasting propaganda to the North Koreans need to do.
Or maybe, he died of a brain bleed or brain swelling brought on by being roughed up my the cops. Or maybe, the cops went to his house and put him out of their misery to shut him up There are lots of possibilities. Everyone should demand a thorough investigation by an independent (from the SFPD) investigator.
It's possible, sure. But you're 100% wrong that "everyone" should demand a thorough investigation. Everyone should be following the wishes of his family here, whether that be them demanding a thorough investigation or whether it means they want to remember him as the good, productive, inspiring man that he was for decades before his suicide.
His family has more reason to see this investigated than anyone, so if they are content in believing it was an unsuspicious suicide, which is what it sounds like, then you probably should be too.
reply to AC below:
Nobody is suggesting his family murdered him.
People are suggesting that his family is partaking in the cover up by not demanding an investigation and "whitewashing" the announcements of his death. To suggest that they would do this for anything other than benign reasons absolutely is suggesting that they were involved in, complicit with, or are helping to cover up his murder. It's insane and incredibly disrespectful both to him and to his family.
He threatened to kill himself. And then he threatened to kill himself again because his "career was over".
While successful criminal charges may be life-changing, they are not automatically an end to your career, especially not a unique and special one as Mr. Murdock had. His career was one which he created for himself, which he was the main driving force of, and which was based on his accomplishments and reputation in the Linux and Open Source communities where it was basically unassailable, as should be obvious from a lot of the replies about his death.
There's a drastic leap of logic here needed to believe any of this to be true.
You think assaulting an officer is a trivial crime?
Well, instead of just emotionally asserting "facts", as you seem to want to do, let's take a look and see how serious it is. A quick google search reveals that:
Battery on a peace / police officer is typically a misdemeanor in California law. The potential penalties are up to one (1) year in county jail, and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000).4
But if the battery causes an injury requiring medical treatment, then this crime becomes a wobbler (that is, a crime that may be charged as a misdemeanor or a California felony).
If it is charged as a felony, battery on a peace officer carries a potential sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) or three (3) years in county jail, and/or a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).5
Seeing as no police required medical treatment, and that the description of his arrest(s) and treatment don't seem to be out of the ordinary, he wasn't likely to be charged with a felony and wasn't likely to see jailtime. Considering he was in good standing with the community and had no prior arrests (?), he was probably going to receive IF FOUND GUILTY some combination of probation, fines, community service, or mental health treatment. Do you consider that to be "serious"? Or worth taking your life over?
The entire argument against this being anything other than a tragic suicide rests on making up "facts" and emotionally appealing to the state being able to do anything it wants, with the proof being the same thing as the question in the first place: that they just murdered Ian Murdock and are conspiring with his family members to cover it up.
I'm going to go with option (b) here, which is that his family desires privacy because he tragically took his own life in a way that never needed to happen and they don't want to drag his name through the mud. His family has more reasons than anybody to pursue the truth here.
he probably suffered torture at the hand of police.
Torture? He didn't even suggest that. It sounds like he was arrested against his will. He suggested that the arrest was unnecessary or illegal, not that there was torture.
It's certainly fair to ask why, but presumably his family has done that or feels it is unnecessary because the why is already obvious. I'd rather not see his decades of effort bettering society being minimized if he had some kind of substance abuse or emotional issues and ended up taking his own life.
I'd say it was pretty unhinged. He threatened to kill himself because he thought his career was over, which he presumably thought was because of a bogus arrest?
No, there is every reason to honor their wishes. His family presumably wants privacy because they don't want to see anyone's memory of him be tarnished, and most likely that's because he obviously committed suicide in a non-suspicious manner after having some kind of mental breakdown. Which may have been the culmination of some kind of ongoing series of mental breakdowns that they'd rather not have him be remembered by.
The guy threatened suicide, and ranted about the police, and then stated that "my career is over now, so I'll be gone soon". It's fucking idiotic to suggest that the family is in on a police coverup of his murder or whatever the fuck crazy ideas people are having all because they might inherit some dollars, or that they're threatened, or that they just feel so terrible about him being murdered that they don't want to ever think about it again.
The guy's last wish was to kill himself. I wish it hadn't happened, because he did a hell of a lot for Linux. Doing a little bit for his wife and kids and family in return is the least anyone could do. Go fuck yourself if you're some kind of conspiratorial moron who would use his name to feed your fantasies without a SINGLE piece of evidence otherwise.
But did they blow up a plane with several Sikhs on it?