Of course the flip-side to that is that I could be telling the truth and you could still sue me for slander
In the U.S. (unlike some other nation/states (I'm looking at you, U.K.), the Truth is a Complete Defense to an allegation of Slander.
IOW, in the U.S., at least, if you, as the Defendant in a Defamation of Character Suit, can provide evidence that what you said/wrote WAS in fact, true, the Plaintiff's lawsuit will be Dismisssed.
You can also show that your claim was satire, and that no reasonable person could mistake your claim to be serious. For example, you can say that Donald Trump's father was an orangutan. That said, I think slander laws are pretty stupid, and I don't think the benefit we gain from them is worth the diminished state of our freedom of speech.
Yeah, you're right, I wasn't thinking. And also, it is also a rebuttable defense that the target is a public/famous figure, and that they lose a measure of defamation-protection.
Wealth increases drastically overall, but jobs change (They don't go away, but people are forced to seek different forms of employment) -
Tell that to the 1400+ employees of Carrier in Indiana that just learned that it is moving its HVAC-equipment plants to Mexico. And that, a scant 2 years after the State gave them a $5.1 Million tax-break to EXPAND their operations in the State.
Those people had jobs. Then those jobs went to Mexico.
However you want to parse the language and obsufate the facts, I'm pretty sure that is the exact equivalent to those jobs effectively "going away".
Of course the flip-side to that is that I could be telling the truth and you could still sue me for slander
In the U.S. (unlike some other nation/states (I'm looking at you, U.K.), the Truth is a Complete Defense to an allegation of Slander.
IOW, in the U.S., at least, if you, as the Defendant in a Defamation of Character Suit, can provide evidence that what you said/wrote WAS in fact, true, the Plaintiff's lawsuit will be Dismisssed.
Apple has never said that its impossible for the data to be revealed, they have just said that they refuse to assist the FBI.
But if its possible to write software to decrypt the phone's data, then its not actually cryptographically secured - or at least the key is available. In any case, if apple doesn't do this task for the FBI, NSA/CIA will do it at greater cost.
The FBI and Apple have already conspired, but Apple requested the theater over this to give the appearance of being a privacy advocate.
WRONG!
The Gummint COULD have just sent Apple an NSL, and they would have been PREVENTED from talking about it; but NOOOOO; it was that same GUMMINT that made this an Open Order in an Open Court.
This is exactly how fascism rises up as a 'peoples' movement via propaganda and hysteria. The Trump phenomenon operates on the same principles. It works today as well as it did 90 years ago. It is a fatal flaw of majority rule.
They did manage them. The FBI told them to reset the account password, which locked the FBI out of the phone. Convenient, really, almost like they did that on purpose.
Citation, please?
According to Apple, it was the GOVERNMENT that sua sponte decided to reset the password on the phone, putting THEMSELVES out of the ability to decrypt the iCloud Backup THAT APPLE FREELY SUPPLIED TO THE FBI.
Actually, from what I've been reading, the actual ruling hasn't been officially entered by the judge, only a draft of what the judge is planning to order at the hearing on March 22 has been released so everybody can be ready to officially address the judge's order during the hearing.
Soooo, officially Apple hasn't refused to do anything yet because the judge hasn't officially ordered it...
Fascinating! So, I wonder why that little (but very important!) fact has not been reported by ANY Lame-Stream Media?
If they do it once they will be asked to do it again. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
But then they would have a chance to verify and appeal the court order every time, and thus alleviating your concerns that it would happen "regardless of the legality of doing so".
That's really cute. You obviously have NO idea how legal precedents work, do you?
If you get a search warrant for my property, it allows you to conduct your own fucking search... it sure as shit doesn't compel me to show you around and help you find the stuff you're looking for. A warrant isn't a magical unicorn, it's a right to search. But it doesn't mean the one being searched needs to assist.
And it's even worse than that:
This is akin to having the Police compel your NEIGHBOR to help them find stuff in YOUR house (for which they have a warrant).
Apple shouldn't even BE in this fight, and if THEY tried to insinuate themselves into the process, they'd be an "Interloper", and any motion to have them added as a Party would be denied. But yet, the Gummint thinks they can compel a "Third Party" to do something? I'm not sure that will actually fly, when challenged.
Your comparison would only make sense if the warrant included disassembly and confiscation of all contents of the house and the structure of the house itself, including coercing the builder of the house to tell the authorities how to disassemble it.
Not at all. In this case, the FBI wants to try to crack the phone by repeatedly entering passcodes without the phone bricking itself. No disassembly, confiscation or disassembly is required.
This is a publicity stunt, but Americans should be terrified that it is now considered un-American for a corporation to refuse to assist the government to spy on citizens and bypass protections.
Apple WILL comply when it gets to the point where federal marshals show up at Apple HQ to arrest Mr. Cook for not complying with a court order.
Here's the deal, though: This was apparently the Order of a fairly lower-court, and thus has at least 2 or 3 levels of Appeal before an actual, final decision. So, it SHOULD be quite a long time before the Jackboots have their feet on Mr. Cook's neck.
I wouldn't recommend iphones to anyone but certainly not for this reason. The whole notion of lumping Apple in with this classification of criminal is just batshit crazy.
I've noticed that, starting today, there is a drumbeat of "Apple is siding with the Terrists!" in news-story after news-story.
The reality is that the relative geographic isolation of Australia and the fact that, for most people, something that happens there might as well be on the moon, has more to do with the lack of terrorist attacks than the steady increase in government surveillance and the erosion of liberty. Unfortunately, the politicians will just say "hey, no attacks, so we must be right!"
I made it a point to try to avoid any and all animals and most of the plants. I'm not even afraid of normal animals. I just know that I don't know enough about Australia's flora and fauna to go randomly screwing with it. That's how you get hurt. We put most everything in the tent at night, just to make sure that nothing crawled in it and tried to kill me in the morning.
From what I know about Australia, everything is more deadly than everything else. In fact, they have a Trap Door Spider that is SO venomous that Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) who was Austrailian of course, said it was literally the ONLY thing he was truly scared of. And that's saying something!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the flip-side to that is that I could be telling the truth and you could still sue me for slander
In the U.S. (unlike some other nation/states (I'm looking at you, U.K.), the Truth is a Complete Defense to an allegation of Slander.
IOW, in the U.S., at least, if you, as the Defendant in a Defamation of Character Suit, can provide evidence that what you said/wrote WAS in fact, true, the Plaintiff's lawsuit will be Dismisssed.
They can still sue, but they likely won't win.
Exactly. I meant to make that point, but forgot.
You can also show that your claim was satire, and that no reasonable person could mistake your claim to be serious. For example, you can say that Donald Trump's father was an orangutan. That said, I think slander laws are pretty stupid, and I don't think the benefit we gain from them is worth the diminished state of our freedom of speech.
Yeah, you're right, I wasn't thinking. And also, it is also a rebuttable defense that the target is a public/famous figure, and that they lose a measure of defamation-protection.
A woman at that point could possibly get sperm from a man without his consent or knowledge and then use that child as a golden ticket against them.
There was a Law & Order episode about EXACTLY this!
That's ok cause there is a strand within humanism that follow the three rules: 1. Women are Evil 2. Men are Stupid 3. Beer is Good
Todd Rundgren said (sang) it best...
Wealth increases drastically overall, but jobs change (They don't go away, but people are forced to seek different forms of employment) -
Tell that to the 1400+ employees of Carrier in Indiana that just learned that it is moving its HVAC-equipment plants to Mexico. And that, a scant 2 years after the State gave them a $5.1 Million tax-break to EXPAND their operations in the State.
Those people had jobs. Then those jobs went to Mexico.
However you want to parse the language and obsufate the facts, I'm pretty sure that is the exact equivalent to those jobs effectively "going away".
Of course the flip-side to that is that I could be telling the truth and you could still sue me for slander
In the U.S. (unlike some other nation/states (I'm looking at you, U.K.), the Truth is a Complete Defense to an allegation of Slander.
IOW, in the U.S., at least, if you, as the Defendant in a Defamation of Character Suit, can provide evidence that what you said/wrote WAS in fact, true, the Plaintiff's lawsuit will be Dismisssed.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
ANYTHING can be conjectured to POTENTIALLY do ANYTHING. That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
Apple has never said that its impossible for the data to be revealed, they have just said that they refuse to assist the FBI.
But if its possible to write software to decrypt the phone's data, then its not actually cryptographically secured - or at least the key is available. In any case, if apple doesn't do this task for the FBI, NSA/CIA will do it at greater cost.
Actually, they HAVE categorically, and repeatedly, stated that anything running iOS 8 or later CANNOT be hacked, even by Apple.
The FBI and Apple have already conspired, but Apple requested the theater over this to give the appearance of being a privacy advocate.
WRONG!
The Gummint COULD have just sent Apple an NSL, and they would have been PREVENTED from talking about it; but NOOOOO; it was that same GUMMINT that made this an Open Order in an Open Court.
THEY wanted a media-show; not Apple.
This is exactly how fascism rises up as a 'peoples' movement via propaganda and hysteria. The Trump phenomenon operates on the same principles. It works today as well as it did 90 years ago. It is a fatal flaw of majority rule.
MOD THIS UP!!!
There's a reason Trump is winning every state in the primaries....
Yeah, but he's right in lock-step with the others, unequivocally stating that he would order Apple to do the Gummint's bidding.
They did manage them. The FBI told them to reset the account password, which locked the FBI out of the phone. Convenient, really, almost like they did that on purpose.
Citation, please?
According to Apple, it was the GOVERNMENT that sua sponte decided to reset the password on the phone, putting THEMSELVES out of the ability to decrypt the iCloud Backup THAT APPLE FREELY SUPPLIED TO THE FBI.
Read, then Post.
Actually, from what I've been reading, the actual ruling hasn't been officially entered by the judge, only a draft of what the judge is planning to order at the hearing on March 22 has been released so everybody can be ready to officially address the judge's order during the hearing.
Soooo, officially Apple hasn't refused to do anything yet because the judge hasn't officially ordered it...
Fascinating! So, I wonder why that little (but very important!) fact has not been reported by ANY Lame-Stream Media?
If they do it once they will be asked to do it again. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
But then they would have a chance to verify and appeal the court order every time, and thus alleviating your concerns that it would happen "regardless of the legality of doing so".
That's really cute. You obviously have NO idea how legal precedents work, do you?
Which will be used repeatedly in the future on other phones in other cases regardless of the legality of doing so.
It would be a simple matter for Apple to write the patched OS so that it only works on one particular phone.
So, Apple has to then do even MORE work, to un-fuck the intentional-fuckup?
Apple DOES cooperate, when they are able to do things like pull data out of iCloud backups.
What they are being asked to do is write a custom OS for free. To fix a mistake the FBI made.
TWO mistakes: The first one was summarily executing the shooter(s), thus putting the "Compel to unlock phone" solution neatly out of reach.
If you get a search warrant for my property, it allows you to conduct your own fucking search ... it sure as shit doesn't compel me to show you around and help you find the stuff you're looking for. A warrant isn't a magical unicorn, it's a right to search. But it doesn't mean the one being searched needs to assist.
And it's even worse than that:
This is akin to having the Police compel your NEIGHBOR to help them find stuff in YOUR house (for which they have a warrant).
Apple shouldn't even BE in this fight, and if THEY tried to insinuate themselves into the process, they'd be an "Interloper", and any motion to have them added as a Party would be denied. But yet, the Gummint thinks they can compel a "Third Party" to do something? I'm not sure that will actually fly, when challenged.
Your comparison would only make sense if the warrant included disassembly and confiscation of all contents of the house and the structure of the house itself, including coercing the builder of the house to tell the authorities how to disassemble it.
Not at all. In this case, the FBI wants to try to crack the phone by repeatedly entering passcodes without the phone bricking itself. No disassembly, confiscation or disassembly is required.
They already supplied the FBI with an (encrypted) backup of the phone (see "Is there any other way that you can help the FBI"?). It's now up to the gummint to decipher what they've got.
Notice that THAT factoid isn't getting any "Press"...
So I take it you're also against home and property searches by the police carrying a signed warrant ?
They don't have a Signed WARRANT. They have a WRIT, which is an ENTIRELY different animal.
This is a publicity stunt, but Americans should be terrified that it is now considered un-American for a corporation to refuse to assist the government to spy on citizens and bypass protections.
EXACTLY THIS!
Apple WILL comply when it gets to the point where federal marshals show up at Apple HQ to arrest Mr. Cook for not complying with a court order.
Here's the deal, though: This was apparently the Order of a fairly lower-court, and thus has at least 2 or 3 levels of Appeal before an actual, final decision. So, it SHOULD be quite a long time before the Jackboots have their feet on Mr. Cook's neck.
I wouldn't recommend iphones to anyone but certainly not for this reason. The whole notion of lumping Apple in with this classification of criminal is just batshit crazy.
I've noticed that, starting today, there is a drumbeat of "Apple is siding with the Terrists!" in news-story after news-story.
The Farce is strong in this issue.
The reality is that the relative geographic isolation of Australia and the fact that, for most people, something that happens there might as well be on the moon, has more to do with the lack of terrorist attacks than the steady increase in government surveillance and the erosion of liberty. Unfortunately, the politicians will just say "hey, no attacks, so we must be right!"
Yeah, they use that argument in the U.S., too.
I made it a point to try to avoid any and all animals and most of the plants. I'm not even afraid of normal animals. I just know that I don't know enough about Australia's flora and fauna to go randomly screwing with it. That's how you get hurt. We put most everything in the tent at night, just to make sure that nothing crawled in it and tried to kill me in the morning.
From what I know about Australia, everything is more deadly than everything else. In fact, they have a Trap Door Spider that is SO venomous that Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) who was Austrailian of course, said it was literally the ONLY thing he was truly scared of. And that's saying something!
Besides the fact that 90% of your country is completely uninhabitable by any sizable human population and you're all cluster-fucked to the coasts?
And this differs from the US how?
By about 70%.