The flaw in your example is that the pizza delivery guy witnessed the crime. Blackberry in these cases, did not witness, then report.
Please... You are grasping for straws. I gave a second example — of the delivery guy wearing a wire to help police. He does not have to have personally witnessed the crime, he just has to be sincerely believe, there is one in progress.
Now, of course, having personally witnessed something helps develop such sincere belief, but it is neither required nor sufficient. For example, he may have personally heard a child screaming, but that may simply have been somebody watching Home Alone-N upstairs.
So, whether the cooperating party personally witnessed (what seems like) a crime or not, their cooperation with police over it is perfectly ethical as long as they sincerely believe it.
As opposite to, for example, agreeing simply in order to win a major contract or retain a business license.
If you don't want blackberry decrypting your communications and giving that information to anyone who asks; Don't use Blackberry.
Yes, that's true.
Blackberry has deliberately set themselves up as a third party to every conversation
That may be their design flaw. Or, maybe, that was one of the goals — to avoid becoming "a tool for criminals".
And before you denounce the "KKKorporations" and the "police state" over it, consider the arguments for banning of Yik Yakin colleges — by "offended" students...
Apple by contrast has gone to great lengths to ensure that they *are not a party to your information*
Sure, and that seems to be working out well for them. Is not capitalist competition a great thing?
When is a control freak cop going to spy on his wife?
The company claims, it takes measures to prevent abuses.
To claim their measures insufficient, you (or TFA's author) need to cite counter-examples — just as you would need to upload a "tag"-file to an unprotected FTP-server.
Most of the comments here seem to denounce Blackberry simply for cooperation with law-enforcement — as if that were automatically wrong. It is not.
Of course, they are just fine legally. I contend, there is nothing automatically wrong ethically either.
Unless one is prepared to denounce all cooperation with police — and in all countries — one needs to cite particular examples, where Blackberry was wrong to cooperate, in order to accuse the company of ethical lapse(s).
Its not the manufacturer's responsibility.
You are obviously right, it is not. But the manufacturer may choose to cooperate.
I gave an example of a pizza-delivery guy observing a crime (such as child-abuse), while performing a delivery. It is perfectly ethical for him to report it. Moreover, he can even offer to help the police by, for example, wearing a wire or a hidden camera during the next visit to the same house. As long as he sincerely believes, he is helping end a real crime, his actions aren't only ethical, they are commendable!
That pesky Fourth Amendment actually does mean something
This has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment — police can ask other people about you without a warrant. It is neither illegal nor unethical for them to do so, nor is it for those people to respond — unless the investigation itself is bogus, of course.
Unless you are prepared to denounce all cooperation with police — in all countries — you'll need to cite concrete examples of cases, where Blackberry should not have helped the authorities in order to blame the company.
"We were helping law enforcement kick ass," said one person.
And this is automatically wrong because?..
Police aren't doing anything useful
We'd be better off without them
Their activity is not paid for by taxpayers
Ah, privacy... Well, Blackberry aren't automatically wrong in assisting police investigate genuine wrongdoing any more, than a pizza-guy reporting child-abuse he observed while delivering. The only thing the firm may be accused of is assisting in obviously bogus investigations. Neither the write-up nor TFA make such a claim.
conceived, paid for, and built by the US defense department and sigh "Don't you wish we could have this without all that pesky GOVERNMENT involvement?"
Point stands though — complaining about the opponent's sources makes sense only, when they are cited to support an opinion. Facts — such as the fact, that USPS has an official monopoly on First Class Mail — remain indisputable.
After all, Somalia should be a paradise by your standards.
Bullshit. Somalia is the hellhole exactly because of the big-government dictator (Siad Barre) that ran it. Something similar is developing in Venezuela — mere ten years after its late destroyer was a guest of honor on "World Social Forum" — right now too. When will the world's Marxists — referring to themselves as "global civil society" — come to Caracas again?
Fee.org? Lets just say they have their own axe to grind and are not unbiased source.
I didn't cite it for their opinion, which may, indeed, be biased. I cited them for their facts: the figure collected by NYC in parking fines from delivery-companies. Unless you are accusing them of bona-fide lying, your rebuttal is without merit.
But then again, you knew that already — and just had to say something, didn't you?..
which is why you intentionally cite libertarian/conservative/randroid sources
No, that's because reality has a Libertarian bias.
Are you demanding a citation for "approximately zero people live to 118"?
Strange, I quoted the part I'd like substantiated. Here it is again for you:
The standard you are defending is excessively high given that approximately zero people live 75 years after retirement.
Fortunately it's an issue that could be fixed, for instance by requiring the USPS to follow the same rules as everyone else or removing the price controls.
Sure! For that to happen USPS just has to become private — as everyone else.
when private corporations screw up
A private corporation screwing up goes bankrupt and/or taken over by competitors. Think of user-space vs. kernel code — a user-space process crashing is unpleasant, but a kernel crash is outright devastating. This is why whatever can be private, should be.
Is it? How are they different? In both cases the policeman/detective can make threats — explicit or veiled — which their target may choose to ignore if he believes, the demand is not legal.
An NSL *compels* information, and it also comes with a gag order.
Not any more than a cop saying: "If you don't help, I may suspect you of being in cahoots with him", and adding: "Oh, and please, do not tell him about this conversation, alright?"
Now, this all assumes, the FBI does not have any actual legal power to substantiate such threats — and this is something, the Legal departments of the "Tech Firms" involved should know better than you and me.
If the FBI are bluffing, the firms could send them back a kite-assembly kit. If they are not — or if a particular case does seem like cooperation with the investigation would be ethical — then they should cooperate.
Either way, making amorphous press-releases seems more like FUD-spreading...
The standard you are defending is excessively high given that approximately zero people live 75 years after retirement.
Citation, please...
Additionally you are forgetting to include the federal government's price controls against the USPS
USPS are part of the Federal Government. Arguments like yours simply underline the said Government's incompetence — and serve nothing but advancing the idea of privatizing USPS — the idea I support, but you do not...
Well, the USPS are still there 10 years later, so it must be possible. I, for one, expect nothing but the very best from our benevolent and omniscient government. If they can decide, how I should pay my doctors and what medicine is good for me, if they can know, what foods are healthy, how children should be reared, Internet-service provided, and retirement financed, they can certainly figure out, how to pay for their own workers' retirement. Especially, since they are exempt from some of the local laws (like parking regulations) — NYC alone gets over $100 mln in fines from FedEx and other private companies every year, but not from USPS.
And make it a model too — for the knuckle-dragging KKKapitalists to follow!
Seriously though, the required prefunding, which you Statists like to talk about so much, protects taxpayers, who'd be on the hook to pay for these government workers otherwise. Hasn't Detroit taught you anything? We do not owe employees of private companies, but postal workers work for us. This is why USPS is — and ought to be — treated differently from the "Fortune 500" companies.
you amusingly stupid mucksavage
And here come insults and name-calling. I think, I'll retire from this thread before you escalate to throwing of feces and banana-peels. Remember to logout.
Tech Firms Say FBI Wants Browsing History Without Warrant
Just how is this different — in principle — from the normal and old-fashioned investigation, where the investigator would talk to the suspect's friends, business-partners, grocery-suppliers, neighbors, and landlords? And, if the folks had any relevant records, ask to see them?
Sherlock Holmes would do that, Perry Mason would do that, Hercule Poirot would do that, Miss Marple would do that. Why can't the FBI — which law are they violating by the mere asking? There is no allegation in TFA of any illegal threats the agents have made against the companies for non-compliance or for demanding a warrant or some other approval from the Judiciary... What is the there there?
There is also the argument of whether or not you believe in corrections and rehabilitations.
I do believe, that some people may be rehabilitated. However, the purpose of the justice system is not solely that.
If you are comfortable with the anti-correction and anti-rehabilitation stance that our penal system has taken
Bzzz! Wrong. Killing the uncorrectable is not "anti-correction". Nice try, but fail. Good example, however, of word-munging and term-substitution. Thanks!
I however would much rather we work on making criminals into functional and valuable members of society
Such work would indeed be most desirable, if it had any reasonable promise in it. For another example, I'd very much humans could fly. Unfortunately, our bodies do not allow for it and I'm going to dismiss your whining about rehabilitating murderers with the same amused disdain I have for people flapping their hands trying to rise into the air — even if they denounce me as "anti-flying" over it.
There was no question "why". You've contributed 0 to the conversation and your posting failed to fail to suck. Try harder next time — should you feel it necessary for the "next time" to ever happen. Remember to logout.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Otherwise known as "innocent until proven guilty".
Please... You are grasping for straws. I gave a second example — of the delivery guy wearing a wire to help police. He does not have to have personally witnessed the crime, he just has to be sincerely believe, there is one in progress.
Now, of course, having personally witnessed something helps develop such sincere belief, but it is neither required nor sufficient. For example, he may have personally heard a child screaming, but that may simply have been somebody watching Home Alone-N upstairs.
So, whether the cooperating party personally witnessed (what seems like) a crime or not, their cooperation with police over it is perfectly ethical as long as they sincerely believe it.
As opposite to, for example, agreeing simply in order to win a major contract or retain a business license.
Yes, that's true.
That may be their design flaw. Or, maybe, that was one of the goals — to avoid becoming "a tool for criminals".
And before you denounce the "KKKorporations" and the "police state" over it, consider the arguments for banning of Yik Yak in colleges — by "offended" students...
Sure, and that seems to be working out well for them. Is not capitalist competition a great thing?
The company claims, it takes measures to prevent abuses.
To claim their measures insufficient, you (or TFA's author) need to cite counter-examples — just as you would need to upload a "tag"-file to an unprotected FTP-server.
Most of the comments here seem to denounce Blackberry simply for cooperation with law-enforcement — as if that were automatically wrong. It is not.
Of course, they are just fine legally. I contend, there is nothing automatically wrong ethically either.
Unless one is prepared to denounce all cooperation with police — and in all countries — one needs to cite particular examples, where Blackberry was wrong to cooperate, in order to accuse the company of ethical lapse(s).
You are obviously right, it is not. But the manufacturer may choose to cooperate.
I gave an example of a pizza-delivery guy observing a crime (such as child-abuse), while performing a delivery. It is perfectly ethical for him to report it. Moreover, he can even offer to help the police by, for example, wearing a wire or a hidden camera during the next visit to the same house. As long as he sincerely believes, he is helping end a real crime, his actions aren't only ethical, they are commendable!
This has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment — police can ask other people about you without a warrant. It is neither illegal nor unethical for them to do so, nor is it for those people to respond — unless the investigation itself is bogus, of course.
Unless you are prepared to denounce all cooperation with police — in all countries — you'll need to cite concrete examples of cases, where Blackberry should not have helped the authorities in order to blame the company.
And this is automatically wrong because?..
Ah, privacy... Well, Blackberry aren't automatically wrong in assisting police investigate genuine wrongdoing any more, than a pizza-guy reporting child-abuse he observed while delivering. The only thing the firm may be accused of is assisting in obviously bogus investigations. Neither the write-up nor TFA make such a claim.
How about TOR? Developed by the US Navy...
Please, don't hate, asshole.
Was not it only, what, 20 years ago, when multi-threading was all the rage, and the OSes, that didn't offer it, were ridiculed?
Can't wait for aout to come back and take over ELF again...
You are right...
Point stands though — complaining about the opponent's sources makes sense only, when they are cited to support an opinion. Facts — such as the fact, that USPS has an official monopoly on First Class Mail — remain indisputable.
Bullshit. Somalia is the hellhole exactly because of the big-government dictator (Siad Barre) that ran it. Something similar is developing in Venezuela — mere ten years after its late destroyer was a guest of honor on "World Social Forum" — right now too. When will the world's Marxists — referring to themselves as "global civil society" — come to Caracas again?
Nothing happens to the "alternative" wires, that does not happen to the normally-used ones.
Bzzz! Hold it right there! What makes them "inappropriate"? Are some public roads more public than others?
Khm, at least, you aren't questioning "the sense" of a nation's postal service mowing lawns... Now that would have been a tough one...
I didn't cite it for their opinion, which may, indeed, be biased. I cited them for their facts: the figure collected by NYC in parking fines from delivery-companies. Unless you are accusing them of bona-fide lying, your rebuttal is without merit.
But then again, you knew that already — and just had to say something, didn't you?..
No, that's because reality has a Libertarian bias.
Strange, I quoted the part I'd like substantiated. Here it is again for you:
Sure! For that to happen USPS just has to become private — as everyone else .
A private corporation screwing up goes bankrupt and/or taken over by competitors. Think of user-space vs. kernel code — a user-space process crashing is unpleasant, but a kernel crash is outright devastating. This is why whatever can be private, should be.
Is it? How are they different? In both cases the policeman/detective can make threats — explicit or veiled — which their target may choose to ignore if he believes, the demand is not legal.
Not any more than a cop saying: "If you don't help, I may suspect you of being in cahoots with him", and adding: "Oh, and please, do not tell him about this conversation, alright?"
Now, this all assumes, the FBI does not have any actual legal power to substantiate such threats — and this is something, the Legal departments of the "Tech Firms" involved should know better than you and me.
If the FBI are bluffing, the firms could send them back a kite-assembly kit. If they are not — or if a particular case does seem like cooperation with the investigation would be ethical — then they should cooperate.
Either way, making amorphous press-releases seems more like FUD-spreading...
Citation, please...
USPS are part of the Federal Government. Arguments like yours simply underline the said Government's incompetence — and serve nothing but advancing the idea of privatizing USPS — the idea I support, but you do not...
Well, the USPS are still there 10 years later, so it must be possible. I, for one, expect nothing but the very best from our benevolent and omniscient government. If they can decide, how I should pay my doctors and what medicine is good for me, if they can know, what foods are healthy, how children should be reared, Internet-service provided, and retirement financed, they can certainly figure out, how to pay for their own workers' retirement. Especially, since they are exempt from some of the local laws (like parking regulations) — NYC alone gets over $100 mln in fines from FedEx and other private companies every year, but not from USPS.
And make it a model too — for the knuckle-dragging KKKapitalists to follow!
Seriously though, the required prefunding , which you Statists like to talk about so much, protects taxpayers, who'd be on the hook to pay for these government workers otherwise. Hasn't Detroit taught you anything? We do not owe employees of private companies, but postal workers work for us. This is why USPS is — and ought to be — treated differently from the "Fortune 500" companies.
And here come insults and name-calling. I think, I'll retire from this thread before you escalate to throwing of feces and banana-peels. Remember to logout.
But-but-but, those are evil KKKorporations, so of course they get away with shitting on their workers. My question was — and remains:
USPS was (barely) self-supporting, before its government's monopoly on First Class Mail was obsoleted by e-mail.
I wonder, if Finland will now similarly make it illegal for private competitors to mow lawns...
All the more reasons to privatize it, uhm?
What's so "unreasonable" about keeping a government monopoly to a higher standard?
Just how is this different — in principle — from the normal and old-fashioned investigation, where the investigator would talk to the suspect's friends, business-partners, grocery-suppliers, neighbors, and landlords? And, if the folks had any relevant records, ask to see them?
Sherlock Holmes would do that, Perry Mason would do that, Hercule Poirot would do that, Miss Marple would do that. Why can't the FBI — which law are they violating by the mere asking? There is no allegation in TFA of any illegal threats the agents have made against the companies for non-compliance or for demanding a warrant or some other approval from the Judiciary... What is the there there?
I do believe, that some people may be rehabilitated. However, the purpose of the justice system is not solely that.
Bzzz! Wrong. Killing the uncorrectable is not "anti-correction". Nice try, but fail. Good example, however, of word-munging and term-substitution. Thanks!
Such work would indeed be most desirable, if it had any reasonable promise in it. For another example, I'd very much humans could fly. Unfortunately, our bodies do not allow for it and I'm going to dismiss your whining about rehabilitating murderers with the same amused disdain I have for people flapping their hands trying to rise into the air — even if they denounce me as "anti-flying" over it.
There was no question "why". You've contributed 0 to the conversation and your posting failed to fail to suck. Try harder next time — should you feel it necessary for the "next time" to ever happen. Remember to logout.