Just don't claim, the actual Constitution is on your side.
Never did.
Well, Apple — and its supporters — do. Just look elsewhere in this thread.
You shouldn't either.
Why not?
We are all totally dependent on the good will of people with guns.
Considering my upbringing, I'm likely to be better with a Kalashnikov, than you... Let's not go to, where turning the US into a failed state would take us...
This Apple thing makes a good story.
Which is exactly the premise, the anonymous coward began with. Thanks for playing.
I don't need your approval at all.
For it to become a law of the land you do need the approval of other inhabitants of the same land.
But we aren't discussing some hypothetical future phone, that will be impenetrable. The iPhone in question is vulnerable — and Apple is legally required to help the government exploit the vulnerability. Constitution is on the government's side — Apple know it and must be considering the cost of resisting below the benefits of publicity.
The Constitution does not prevent the Executive from searching citizens. It requires the Executive's cause to be reasonable and approved by the Judiciary's. The requirements the Executive have satisfied in this case.
write malware to compromise their customers' security, or demanding their security signing keys
Both options would've sounded phantastical to the framers of the Constitution, but they are quite analogous to, for example, demanding a landlord's cooperation in opening up a tenant's apartment, or a bank required to open up a customer's safe deposit box.
Yes, it certainly seems that way. Unlike in some other cases, this time the government is doing everything "by the book" FBI do have a proper warrant and all of the backing of the Judiciary, that the 4th Amendment may require. Apple's continuing resistance can only be explained by either utter legal illiteracy or desire for publicity.
Considering the sheer size of the multi-billion dollar corporation, we can dispense with the former option...
The proposal sure is generous... My tax-bill from NY for 2015 is thousands of dollars, being able to lower it by the whopping $200 is not going to move the needle. Especially, if claiming the deduction is going to increase the accountant's fee...
Like a puppy, adopting open source software has ongoing cost.
Yay! Let's give tax-credits to dog-owners as well.
The whole idea is pure vote-pandering — people work on open-source (and get dogs) for fun...
If terrorists are using the Internet, then take the Internet away.
Except it is not, what Mr. Trump has said. Interestingly, the article you linked to, while quoting rebuttals, does not offer the actual quote from Trump — a sure sign, they are attacking a strawman. That alone should tell you, you are being deliberately misinformed (also known as "lied to").
I'll leave finding the actual text to you as an exercise. I've watched the debate live myself, so I don't need it regurgitated to me by moronic journalists.
Of course, "need to be more dangerous" is a catchy flamebait — they need to be made faster (perhaps at the expense of safety, but not necessarily). How exactly to do it, should be decided by people betting their own (rather than the taxpayers') money on the success of the enterprise.
The collective ownership is the root of this and other problems of mass transit. Let them be privately owned and operated — and have the private owners make the risk-reward and other decisions. Too slow — not enough customers. Too many accidents — insurance becomes too expensive.....
It is almost scary to see the rate at which Facebook is expanding and trying to absorb everything that comes in its way.
The second Facebook starts seriously ab- or even misusing that power, it will start losing customers and going the way of MySpace et al. Unlike government, it has no gruff armed people to compel you to continue paying for its services — so they have no choice but to keep the services compelling on their own.
This is something that didn't sit well with some privacy advocates in India, who played an instrumental role in banning Facebook's initiative in the country
Of course, Statists would be alarmed at the prospect of a corporation threatening the government's turf... Better the peasants have no Internet at all, than for a corporation to offer them an incomplete one on its own terms for free.
Ah, but those truly scientific papers are nowhere near as scary and thus fail to convince the laymen to submit more aspects of their lives to the government... Worse, some of them not only fail to support the official line, they openly argue against it — can't have that, can you?
Listen to the literature
Sorry, I'm too busy smelling the cinematography and watching the music at this time.
No, it is not worth advocating. Mr. Chomsky is a Marxist — a self-admitted follower of a man behind the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far (Hitler's genocidal form of Fascism is but a distant second).
The facts remain [...]
Whatever you can throw at the US government, a Marxist one is guilty of far worse.
we have engaged in proxy warfare through state-sponsored terrorism in the Ukrane
You misspelled the name of the country, erroneously put "the" in front of it, and made a wild-ass accusation without any substantiation... A typical Chomsky fan, I suppose...
Unscientific, but convenient... Years later, when the earlier peddled fears fail to materialize, the peddlers offer you new ones without having to blush about the past ones: we never said, it will stop snowing in Scotland, only that it could.
Right. Can't wait for either her showing up at the presidential debates this autumn wearing a tracking device on her leg, or him being finally asked by an unsympathetic interlocutor to explain, how his Socialism is different from that of the late Hugo Chavez... Either way it is promising to be even more fun to watch, than the GOP primaries have been...
Cryptography advances outside of the US made the point moot by early nineties, and the export-restrictions were dropped. But they weren't "stupid" — except, maybe, for the very last year or two.
The article's emphasis is all wrong — the vulnerabilities are due to poor design of SSL2 and the coding practices of OpenSSL developers leading to poor implementation of the rest. Neither of these problems is due to the government's export-restrictions.
Where this simply a case for statistics. I'd support it... But Algebra underpins it all — there are goodarguments for introducing children to Algebra before Arithmetic (Robert Heinlein, actually, floated this idea decades ago).
polynomials and logarithms, and is required by the new Common Core curriculum standards used by 47 states and territories, drives dropouts at both the high school and college levels
Oh, wow — just when America started doing something right about Math, someone wants to mess with it. So, if people drop out because of it, it should be abolished? The logic sounds sort of like that about narcotics — people keep doing it despite efforts to the contrary, so it should become legal. Oh, he only talks about Algebra II — the "complicated" stuff... Well, how elitist of him — what about the poor kids, who fail basic Algebra en masse?
But, hey, how about we abolish the "Common Core" instead and allow the decisions on what to teach be made at the local level — and compare the results? Yes, some schools will be in error, but not all — while national curriculum created in Washington carries the risk of forcing everybody to make a mistake...
But they weren't selling the designs — they were selling items made from the designs.
When people do that with electronics or medicines, this site sides with them and calls owners of the respective intellectual property "patent trolls" — while simultaneously denying the very concept of intellectual property and angrily rejecting any attempts to compare such things to "theft".
Why should not the design-creators be called "license trolls" and otherwise denounced in this case?
They could charge just for the printing service and require the consumer to download the files directly from thingaverse
That's not necessary at all. According to clarifications from the submitter, for most items the problem was simply lack of attribution. So, if they just included the link to the originals and to the license in their eBay descriptions, they would've been in the clear for most items (including the one used by the submitter as an example).
The work-around you are suggesting could have worked for the few less freely licensed items — but I'm not sure, actually... Because it may still be illegal for them to profit from the designs licensed that way.
If you don't attribute, you implicitly do not have permission
Implicitly. Sigh... Wouldn't the clarity be helped tremendously, if the write-up specified, what the explicit problem was: absence of attribution? And if the write-up is wanting in clarity, is not fair to accuse it of being "screwed-up"?
Well, sir, then your write-up is screwed-up. Because, according to it, the problem was the "scraping" and the use without permission (rather than "without attribution").
And, if the "Sad Face!" was not the item with the more restrictive license, why did you link to it as an example?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Apple — and its supporters — do. Just look elsewhere in this thread.
Why not?
Considering my upbringing, I'm likely to be better with a Kalashnikov, than you... Let's not go to, where turning the US into a failed state would take us...
Which is exactly the premise, the anonymous coward began with. Thanks for playing.
For it to become a law of the land you do need the approval of other inhabitants of the same land.
But we aren't discussing some hypothetical future phone, that will be impenetrable. The iPhone in question is vulnerable — and Apple is legally required to help the government exploit the vulnerability. Constitution is on the government's side — Apple know it and must be considering the cost of resisting below the benefits of publicity.
You'll need roughly 2/3rds of the nation to agree with you — get on with it.
The Constitution does not prevent the Executive from searching citizens. It requires the Executive's cause to be reasonable and approved by the Judiciary's. The requirements the Executive have satisfied in this case.
Both options would've sounded phantastical to the framers of the Constitution, but they are quite analogous to, for example, demanding a landlord's cooperation in opening up a tenant's apartment, or a bank required to open up a customer's safe deposit box.
It is not merely a "story" — it also happens to be perfect truth.
Your one-sentence post seems to imply, you disagree with something. Please, elaborate on your position for a dialogue to proceed.
Yes, it certainly seems that way. Unlike in some other cases, this time the government is doing everything "by the book" FBI do have a proper warrant and all of the backing of the Judiciary, that the 4th Amendment may require. Apple's continuing resistance can only be explained by either utter legal illiteracy or desire for publicity.
Considering the sheer size of the multi-billion dollar corporation, we can dispense with the former option...
The proposal sure is generous... My tax-bill from NY for 2015 is thousands of dollars, being able to lower it by the whopping $200 is not going to move the needle. Especially, if claiming the deduction is going to increase the accountant's fee...
Yay! Let's give tax-credits to dog-owners as well.
The whole idea is pure vote-pandering — people work on open-source (and get dogs) for fun...
Except it is not, what Mr. Trump has said. Interestingly, the article you linked to, while quoting rebuttals, does not offer the actual quote from Trump — a sure sign, they are attacking a strawman. That alone should tell you, you are being deliberately misinformed (also known as "lied to").
I'll leave finding the actual text to you as an exercise. I've watched the debate live myself, so I don't need it regurgitated to me by moronic journalists.
Of course, "need to be more dangerous" is a catchy flamebait — they need to be made faster (perhaps at the expense of safety, but not necessarily). How exactly to do it, should be decided by people betting their own (rather than the taxpayers') money on the success of the enterprise.
The collective ownership is the root of this and other problems of mass transit. Let them be privately owned and operated — and have the private owners make the risk-reward and other decisions. Too slow — not enough customers. Too many accidents — insurance becomes too expensive... ..
Election of any RethugliKKKan will mean death of privacy and send a chilling signal to all would-be whistle-blowers.
Oh, wait...
No such thing either, honey.
(Post under your own name, if you want further replies.)
There is simply no such thing, boys and girls...
The second Facebook starts seriously ab- or even misusing that power, it will start losing customers and going the way of MySpace et al. Unlike government, it has no gruff armed people to compel you to continue paying for its services — so they have no choice but to keep the services compelling on their own.
Of course, Statists would be alarmed at the prospect of a corporation threatening the government's turf... Better the peasants have no Internet at all, than for a corporation to offer them an incomplete one on its own terms for free.
Ah, but those truly scientific papers are nowhere near as scary and thus fail to convince the laymen to submit more aspects of their lives to the government... Worse, some of them not only fail to support the official line, they openly argue against it — can't have that, can you?
Sorry, I'm too busy smelling the cinematography and watching the music at this time.
No, it is not worth advocating. Mr. Chomsky is a Marxist — a self-admitted follower of a man behind the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far (Hitler's genocidal form of Fascism is but a distant second).
Whatever you can throw at the US government, a Marxist one is guilty of far worse.
You misspelled the name of the country, erroneously put "the" in front of it, and made a wild-ass accusation without any substantiation... A typical Chomsky fan, I suppose...
If you look carefully, you'll realize, the gloomy predictions tend to include non-committal words like "may" or "could":
This makes them non-falsifiable and thus unscientific...
Unscientific, but convenient... Years later, when the earlier peddled fears fail to materialize, the peddlers offer you new ones without having to blush about the past ones: we never said, it will stop snowing in Scotland, only that it could .
Right. Can't wait for either her showing up at the presidential debates this autumn wearing a tracking device on her leg, or him being finally asked by an unsympathetic interlocutor to explain, how his Socialism is different from that of the late Hugo Chavez... Either way it is promising to be even more fun to watch, than the GOP primaries have been...
Of course, they do protect — encryption is a weapon and you try to limit access to your best stuff. Yes, the enemies may still be able to get some of it, but your efforts make it harder for them.
Cryptography advances outside of the US made the point moot by early nineties, and the export-restrictions were dropped. But they weren't "stupid" — except, maybe, for the very last year or two.
The article's emphasis is all wrong — the vulnerabilities are due to poor design of SSL2 and the coding practices of OpenSSL developers leading to poor implementation of the rest. Neither of these problems is due to the government's export-restrictions.
My original write-up had a colon there, actually — and the quote itself was inside <blockquote>. The posting /. editor messed up the formatting...
Well, competing airlines are yet to do that.
Where this simply a case for statistics. I'd support it... But Algebra underpins it all — there are good arguments for introducing children to Algebra before Arithmetic (Robert Heinlein, actually, floated this idea decades ago).
Oh, wow — just when America started doing something right about Math, someone wants to mess with it. So, if people drop out because of it, it should be abolished? The logic sounds sort of like that about narcotics — people keep doing it despite efforts to the contrary, so it should become legal. Oh, he only talks about Algebra II — the "complicated" stuff... Well, how elitist of him — what about the poor kids, who fail basic Algebra en masse?
But, hey, how about we abolish the "Common Core" instead and allow the decisions on what to teach be made at the local level — and compare the results? Yes, some schools will be in error, but not all — while national curriculum created in Washington carries the risk of forcing everybody to make a mistake...
But they weren't selling the designs — they were selling items made from the designs.
When people do that with electronics or medicines, this site sides with them and calls owners of the respective intellectual property "patent trolls" — while simultaneously denying the very concept of intellectual property and angrily rejecting any attempts to compare such things to "theft".
Why should not the design-creators be called "license trolls" and otherwise denounced in this case?
That's not necessary at all. According to clarifications from the submitter, for most items the problem was simply lack of attribution. So, if they just included the link to the originals and to the license in their eBay descriptions, they would've been in the clear for most items (including the one used by the submitter as an example).
The work-around you are suggesting could have worked for the few less freely licensed items — but I'm not sure, actually... Because it may still be illegal for them to profit from the designs licensed that way.
Implicitly. Sigh... Wouldn't the clarity be helped tremendously, if the write-up specified, what the explicit problem was: absence of attribution? And if the write-up is wanting in clarity, is not fair to accuse it of being "screwed-up"?
Well, sir, then your write-up is screwed-up. Because, according to it, the problem was the "scraping" and the use without permission (rather than "without attribution").
And, if the "Sad Face!" was not the item with the more restrictive license, why did you link to it as an example?