You mean like conscription? Like used in a war? Like we're in a "War on Terror" right now?
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I can see that there is a case to be made.
Regardless of that, saying you back the courts is a non-stance, since the court hasn't even made a final judgment on the core issues yet, and is likely to reverse course in short order.
What I meant is that I support the court regardless of it's decision, because they are the best placed to make that judgement. Rather than an Internet forum where every Tm, Dick or Harry seem ready to start a revolution based on the contents of a headline and a one paragraph summary.
However complex or nuanced the legal arguments, I'm sure Apple the FBI have people who are better than us at making their case than us.
And regardless of if they do or don't, this isn't a matter Slashdot v. the courts. This is a case where if the law does end up backing the FBI, the law needs to be amended since it will clearly no longer be serving its intended purpose.
Well that depends doesn't it. I think there's a lot more complexity to this case than can be covered here, and there is no easy answer.
Just allowing free distribution of cryptography doesn't seem to be in the best interests of society IMO. There is an extremely large risk potential there, and I do believe there needs to be some method (no idea how) that law enforcement, following due process, can obtain sufficient access to evidence when in the public interest.
The law is designed to protect the public interest, simply allowing criminals the capability to avoid prosecution would seem extremely negligent to me.
Well that's also fine, since the law can compel you to do things under certain circumstances (eg tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth).
As long as there is a court order, and due process, I still can't see a problem. That is why we have the courts, so that the FBI aren't just doing whatever they feel like.
Given the choice of law by court, or law by Slashdot comments section, I'll always back the former.
I disagree. "Merchants" have the least amount of power over public policy than they've ever had. See East India Company, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller etc. Bill Gates and his friends have nothing on those people.
So the FBI asked a couple of field agents --guys who have many years playing video games as kids-- and who in their own estimation are 'pewter savvy', and they haven't been able to break into the iPhone without everything getting wiped. And so now they are saying "we need national legislation to force back doors so that we can go on fishing trips all day long".
Wow. Hand in your nerd card you are too stupid to be here...
Read more history. I dont think the Jews in Germany ever imagined things would ever end up where they did either. Thats not hyperbole or Godwin. History EXPLICITLY AND WITHOUT QUESTION teaches us that these powers can and WILL be abused to hurt and literally enslave people.
Sorry but that is Godwin, and I claim my 5p.
A counter example is that Queen Victoria had unrivaled global power in the 19th century and brought about some of the greatest prosperity ever seen up to that point in human history.
So maybe you need to read more history than the one example that history tells you never to use because it is so misused?
Nearly all the candidates talk about how they will "make Apple do this" or "have Silicon Valley do that".
Strange I didn't read it that way.
Carson: "I believe what we need is a public private partnership when it comes to all of these technical things"
Clinton: "there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together"
Rubio: "So I think we're either going to have a figure a way forward by working with Silicon Valley"
Sanders: "So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley"
Trump : "Apple should absolutely -- we should force them to do it. "
So by "Nearly all" you really meant none of them except Trump?
In fact, only one candidate, Marco Rubio, seemed to allow for any nuance on the issue.
Holy shit... really?
I know right?
Out of all the response he seemed to capture the complexity of the issue the best. It's a shame he doesn't apply the same tact with other issues.
If a private entity that has been cooperative and law-abiding can be compelled by the government to spend its own time and resources acting against its own best interests, where does it stop?
Ok I think there's a difference of interpretation here.
I read this as, the govt aren't forcing Apple to co-operate, they are asking. And if Apple agree (freedom of choice), then the developers, ie the actual people doing the coding, do as they are told (no freedom of speech).
If Apple don't agree, then the govt have their hands tied under current law. Unless of course the laws change, which is also ok, since laws are designed to be created and dismantled as fit for a functioning society.
The key piece is that we as voters must try and elect law makers that share our world view. And based of what I know of the Slashdot audience, only Bernie Sanders comes close to this.
The truth is that a band of a few like-minded individuals has been causing all the damage throughout history. Recently it's been the wealthiest people alive. Before that it was those who had declared themselves to be royalty.
Weren't they also the wealthiest people alive?
The difference is that today, peasants also have that power, and I'm less comfortable with stupid, poor people causing havoc.
It's also worth noting that although the upper classes have not been perfect, they have overseen some of the most prosperous times, whereas under the power poor, stupid people it is just misery.
Great, your brilliance has revealed that first amendment protection for literary and religious speech does not exist!
Not in a private organisation no. Free speech is about government interference, not my right to announce that all Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists are stupid, lame fuckers who can suck my dick. Or do you believe that they are protected by that last line somehow by some magic force?
Hey idiot, the first amendment restricts the government and not your f*cking boss.
That's right, and if you read your initial post, you say "Suppose the developer ordered to create this code quits". The developer being a person, who works for a private company (Apple). Get it now?
The first amendment applies to many aspects of civil society not just political speech, such as religion, taste, literature, philosophy. This has been settled law for as long as anyone can remember.
Yet you still seem confused by it. " Compelling someone to create or modify source is compelling speech."
Or maybe you meant something else....
There is a constitution for a reason, and the reason is the minority needs strong protection from the majority.
The Constitution was written in a time when you needed a majority to be a threat. Now with technology any band of a few like-minded individuals can cause just as much damage.
If we look through history, there are three documents stand out as pivotal in human development. The Bible, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution. All contributed immensely (and are still useful), but we are approaching a time when document number 4 is going to be needed to cover all the new dynamics of technologically advanced society.
Everything you do while working as a reporter for the New York Times is Commercial Speech? You clearly, do not know what you are talking about.
If it is non-political in nature yes. Because free speech is really about Politically based speech, not just any and all speech.
Riddle me this. If I write a script, and my boss asks me to modify it for whatever reason, can I refuse based on your basis of "compelled speech"? Can I then refuse to do any work of any nature because I view that as a form of "compelled speech"? Doesn't seem to be a very strong position.
The 1st amendment is often confused with some freedom to say or do what you like, but it is purely targeted at political interference. Apple owns this technology, if they choose to help out, their employees either can tow the line or find other jobs. No 1st amendment implications whatsoever.
Apple's encryption offering is part of it's sales strategy, it's quite clearly commercial in nature. Even if it wasn't, if Apple decide to make a change, the employee can either follow orders or resign. There's no free speech issue here, otherwise most people could just refuse to work based on the same logic.
Source code is speech. Compelling someone to create or modify source is compelling speech.
Wrong.
"Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have long been one of those to poke fun at Apple fanbois and their walled garden. But Tim Cook's ethical stance is making me seriously consider my next phone choice.
Public/government information should be free, but what's mine should stay mine.
Come on Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Cisco, Twitter, Yahoo, Motorola - be Spartacus! Collectively you can face down the Leviathan!
Er, I'm not sure who the Leviathan is here? Given the choice of privatised Leviathan that does whatever it likes, and public Leviathan that can be voted out if required, I'll choose the latter every time.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like conscription? Like used in a war? Like we're in a "War on Terror" right now?
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I can see that there is a case to be made.
You do realize "work with" in the minds of all these people means secret courts and warrants forcing involvement.
Of course it does. It means whatever you want it to mean in your little pea-brain...
Regardless of that, saying you back the courts is a non-stance, since the court hasn't even made a final judgment on the core issues yet, and is likely to reverse course in short order.
What I meant is that I support the court regardless of it's decision, because they are the best placed to make that judgement. Rather than an Internet forum where every Tm, Dick or Harry seem ready to start a revolution based on the contents of a headline and a one paragraph summary.
However complex or nuanced the legal arguments, I'm sure Apple the FBI have people who are better than us at making their case than us.
And regardless of if they do or don't, this isn't a matter Slashdot v. the courts. This is a case where if the law does end up backing the FBI, the law needs to be amended since it will clearly no longer be serving its intended purpose.
Well that depends doesn't it. I think there's a lot more complexity to this case than can be covered here, and there is no easy answer.
Just allowing free distribution of cryptography doesn't seem to be in the best interests of society IMO. There is an extremely large risk potential there, and I do believe there needs to be some method (no idea how) that law enforcement, following due process, can obtain sufficient access to evidence when in the public interest.
The law is designed to protect the public interest, simply allowing criminals the capability to avoid prosecution would seem extremely negligent to me.
Well that's also fine, since the law can compel you to do things under certain circumstances (eg tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth).
As long as there is a court order, and due process, I still can't see a problem. That is why we have the courts, so that the FBI aren't just doing whatever they feel like.
Given the choice of law by court, or law by Slashdot comments section, I'll always back the former.
Are you with me now?
I was always with you, I just thought "Rosa Parks moment" wasn't the clearest analogy.
Now the merchants are the ruling class.
I disagree. "Merchants" have the least amount of power over public policy than they've ever had. See East India Company, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller etc. Bill Gates and his friends have nothing on those people.
Notice the huge flaw in logic:
Yes, yes we did. It's called a Strawman, and you are making the FBI look smart right now...
So the FBI asked a couple of field agents --guys who have many years playing video games as kids-- and who in their own estimation are 'pewter savvy', and they haven't been able to break into the iPhone without everything getting wiped. And so now they are saying "we need national legislation to force back doors so that we can go on fishing trips all day long".
Wow. Hand in your nerd card you are too stupid to be here...
Er what? I thought the Rosa Parks moments was a good thing? Someone has their analogies confused...
Read more history. I dont think the Jews in Germany ever imagined things would ever end up where they did either. Thats not hyperbole or Godwin. History EXPLICITLY AND WITHOUT QUESTION teaches us that these powers can and WILL be abused to hurt and literally enslave people.
Sorry but that is Godwin, and I claim my 5p.
A counter example is that Queen Victoria had unrivaled global power in the 19th century and brought about some of the greatest prosperity ever seen up to that point in human history.
So maybe you need to read more history than the one example that history tells you never to use because it is so misused?
Reading those is genuinely scary.
Only if you aren't very good at reading.
Nearly all the candidates talk about how they will "make Apple do this" or "have Silicon Valley do that".
Strange I didn't read it that way.
Carson: "I believe what we need is a public private partnership when it comes to all of these technical things"
Clinton: "there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together"
Rubio: "So I think we're either going to have a figure a way forward by working with Silicon Valley"
Sanders: "So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley"
Trump : "Apple should absolutely -- we should force them to do it. "
So by "Nearly all" you really meant none of them except Trump?
In fact, only one candidate, Marco Rubio, seemed to allow for any nuance on the issue.
Holy shit... really?
I know right?
Out of all the response he seemed to capture the complexity of the issue the best. It's a shame he doesn't apply the same tact with other issues.
If a private entity that has been cooperative and law-abiding can be compelled by the government to spend its own time and resources acting against its own best interests, where does it stop?
Ok I think there's a difference of interpretation here.
I read this as, the govt aren't forcing Apple to co-operate, they are asking. And if Apple agree (freedom of choice), then the developers, ie the actual people doing the coding, do as they are told (no freedom of speech).
If Apple don't agree, then the govt have their hands tied under current law. Unless of course the laws change, which is also ok, since laws are designed to be created and dismantled as fit for a functioning society.
The key piece is that we as voters must try and elect law makers that share our world view. And based of what I know of the Slashdot audience, only Bernie Sanders comes close to this.
The truth is that a band of a few like-minded individuals has been causing all the damage throughout history. Recently it's been the wealthiest people alive. Before that it was those who had declared themselves to be royalty.
Weren't they also the wealthiest people alive?
The difference is that today, peasants also have that power, and I'm less comfortable with stupid, poor people causing havoc.
It's also worth noting that although the upper classes have not been perfect, they have overseen some of the most prosperous times, whereas under the power poor, stupid people it is just misery.
Great, your brilliance has revealed that first amendment protection for literary and religious speech does not exist!
Not in a private organisation no. Free speech is about government interference, not my right to announce that all Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists are stupid, lame fuckers who can suck my dick. Or do you believe that they are protected by that last line somehow by some magic force?
Hey idiot, the first amendment restricts the government and not your f*cking boss.
That's right, and if you read your initial post, you say "Suppose the developer ordered to create this code quits". The developer being a person, who works for a private company (Apple). Get it now?
The first amendment applies to many aspects of civil society not just political speech, such as religion, taste, literature, philosophy. This has been settled law for as long as anyone can remember.
Yet you still seem confused by it. " Compelling someone to create or modify source is compelling speech."
Or maybe you meant something else....
There is a constitution for a reason, and the reason is the minority needs strong protection from the majority.
The Constitution was written in a time when you needed a majority to be a threat. Now with technology any band of a few like-minded individuals can cause just as much damage.
If we look through history, there are three documents stand out as pivotal in human development. The Bible, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution. All contributed immensely (and are still useful), but we are approaching a time when document number 4 is going to be needed to cover all the new dynamics of technologically advanced society.
Everything you do while working as a reporter for the New York Times is Commercial Speech? You clearly, do not know what you are talking about.
If it is non-political in nature yes. Because free speech is really about Politically based speech, not just any and all speech.
Riddle me this. If I write a script, and my boss asks me to modify it for whatever reason, can I refuse based on your basis of "compelled speech"? Can I then refuse to do any work of any nature because I view that as a form of "compelled speech"? Doesn't seem to be a very strong position.
The 1st amendment is often confused with some freedom to say or do what you like, but it is purely targeted at political interference. Apple owns this technology, if they choose to help out, their employees either can tow the line or find other jobs. No 1st amendment implications whatsoever.
Apple's encryption offering is part of it's sales strategy, it's quite clearly commercial in nature. Even if it wasn't, if Apple decide to make a change, the employee can either follow orders or resign. There's no free speech issue here, otherwise most people could just refuse to work based on the same logic.
Only if your version of good guys and bad guys comes from children's movies.
Real life is a little more complicated than that.
Everything you do while working for a company is considered of commercial nature. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Source code is speech. Compelling someone to create or modify source is compelling speech.
Wrong.
"Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have long been one of those to poke fun at Apple fanbois and their walled garden. But Tim Cook's ethical stance is making me seriously consider my next phone choice.
Public/government information should be free, but what's mine should stay mine.
Come on Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Cisco, Twitter, Yahoo, Motorola - be Spartacus! Collectively you can face down the Leviathan!
Er, I'm not sure who the Leviathan is here? Given the choice of privatised Leviathan that does whatever it likes, and public Leviathan that can be voted out if required, I'll choose the latter every time.
I don't think you understand how code-signing works...
As long as they are required to have a warrant first, then I can't see the problem?
and... Enabling a party to defeat all the security measures that implement an encryption method is distinguishable from breaking the encryption, how?
Because not all security measures are encryption. (Seems straight forward to me, maybe a Venn diagram would help?)