Complex question and best answered that if you have to ask, you're doing enough.
But, a more accurate question is how much do you trust the people who maintain your distro and how much effort are you willing to undertake. You can compile your own kernel. You can not. You can use a bleeding edge kernel. You can compile an older version that supports something that is now depreciated. You can patch. You can do anything you want. It's up to you and all about how much effort you want to put into it and what benefits you expect to get. You're quite probably fine (kernel related) just sticking with your regular updates via aptitude and the default repositories.
Nah, it should be rewritten in Rust, hosted on the cloud, and in a container. If it fails, you automate recovery by spinning up a new instance. Hell, it doesn't even run on iron, never mind big iron! You don't need an admin, when it burns down you spin up a new one.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has read them - all. Yup... I think I've read 'em all - every last one. Some of 'em are damned clever. They put some serious effort into them. Annoyingly enough, they almost always get a bite. There's always someone who wants to shut them up. There's always someone to express their outrage. It's a ritual and I dare say it's an essential part of what makes Slashdot. We can say any retarded thing we want - and be judged accordingly. That might not seem important but I say it's an essential quality.
That's how I understand it but I too am not an expert. I also understand that it's most important when you leave the.onion domains and enter the "clearnet." (When using it as a proxy, for example.) I guess if someone can see enough of the internet at one time then they can also use traffic shaping and timing to single out a user. So long as you remain on the.onion networks you are reasonably safe - some say completely safe.
Now, safe means that you are safe technically. It does not mean you're safe otherwise. You still need to avoid identifying browser characteristics/fingerprints. You need to not leak personal information of any kind and that includes keeping scripting off (or very selective and with great attention to care) and not installing extensions that single you out or may leak the data to a third party. Assuming one is attentive enough to practice safe-hex, they're reasonable secure - with a high level of certainty.
As always, safety needs to be weighed against your goals and the risks you're willing to take to reach them. Security is a process, not an application and nothing is completely secure.
That sounds more exact so it's probably correct and I'll defer to you. I could only be completely sure that it's kind of strict and they've got a hearing - I've heard most of the terminology and am kind of familiar with most of the concepts, enough to know they'd toss that discarded bag from evidence in a heartbeat if it had been picked up and handled by someone else or there was any reason to believe it *might* have been handled by anyone else. They're kind of anal about that. There's also the fruit of a poisoned tree that is along those lines. It's kind of an essential concept, if you ask me.
While I'm at it, it's often the differences between a civil and a criminal offense and procedure. There are different burdens of proof as well as differences in protections. There are differences in applicable penalties. I'm sure you know this but I find those are the things I most notice being given odd beliefs. There's also the belief that it's "belief beyond all doubt." I'm not actually sure why people would believe that's the case but, I see it often. I can only imagine you spend a lot of time shaking your head.
Thank you for the correction/addition/clarification. Duly noted and hopefully archived in my head. I stress again, I am not a lawyer. I know enough law to know that all lawyers are insane and it is not their fault. The whole system is insanity, all the way down to contract law. If you weren't sane when you started, you will be by the time you're done.
That's actually partially your fault. That's a royal you. It is not just you personally.
The lady who wrote To Kill a Mockingbird died yesterday. If you read the book, you might remember a scene from within that book. In that scene (and in the movie), that the courtroom was full of people. Folks of all types showed up. They went, for better or worse, to see that what they believed was justice was served. Why is that important?
There's a part of the social contract that is watching the government to ensure that it has your best interest at heart and to ensure that they're meting out justice. When was the last time you spent a day of your vacation down at the local district court for observation? Courtrooms are open to the public, as the general rule.
As a civilian you are even granted access to a law library, at no cost, somewhere in your State or county. You'll be able to get access if you want to look something up or learn something. It may be provisioned by a local university, a State library, or even a damp basement office in the back of your local district court or even in the old Superior Court located across town - but it's there. Every county in the United States has at least a district court.
It is an unfortunate, but natural, side-effect that a body that is given little oversight will try to increase its power. This will happen so long as we make no effort to observe the courts and then speak out against their transgressions. One might even conjecture that the observation of the courts and the freedom of speech are the two most accessible ways for an individual to impart change.
We have, for too long, relied on the media to give us our coverage instead of taking the time to observe in person and speak out accordingly. Intended or not, unfortunate or not, improper or not, this is the natural progression when power is not held in check. It does require a modicum of solidarity and self-sacrifice. It does mean accepting accountability as an individual and as a collective. Relying on the ACLU or EFF to make observations and speak on our behalf is not adequate.
Alternatively, we can keep on doing what we have been doing.
I am not a legal scholar but I am a curios onlooker. I've not yet read all the documentation concerning this case and not all of it has come to light.
However, I have a question. Who, specifically, has been charged with an offense at this time? If the answer is nobody, and if there is no specific defending party - at this time, then by what authority does the court issue this writ?
I do not know. If they're doing a post-mortem trial, what authority does that have in the US? Have they actually followed the process to have a posthumous trial? If not, and depending on the limits imposed, that might actually be a valid argument to present for a ruling. Has anyone published Apple's legal response and see what they're actually challenging and what arguments they are going to make?
I am not entirely familiar with it, nor a lawyer. I do have a bit of an understanding of law and procedure. I should think that they'd be exploring that argument as well but I do not believe I've heard that mentioned specifically.
I am not a lawyer but will add that I believe the above would be argued in something known as an "evidentiary hearing." At an evidentiary hearing one argues the validity of the evidence and its admissibility is judged based on what a reasonable person would conclude based on precedent and applicable regulations. There are strict circumstances that apply as to what is and isn't allowed to be included as evidence. What is allowed as evidence is judged based on its weight but a reasonable doubt would be that the person picking up the example bag might have tampered with the evidence - breaking the chain of custody.
If it is not life-threatening and the situation warrants, the protocol is for the next officer to stop and observe the dropped bag from the example. 'Reasonable person' is an actual legal concept and if a reasonable person would doubt the validity of the evidence (or if it violates another law or its acquisition does) then it doesn't get admitted as evidence.
I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for the regulations concerning the 'rules of evidence' in your particular jurisdiction. I do believe there's a Wikipedia article on this matter but I make no claims about the validity of said article as I've not actually read it.
Surely, you're not actually surprised by that? I hope you weren't expecting anything different. In my experience, those who scream the loudest are often those who understand the least. Obviously, that's not universal and subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
That's because this is not a warrant. Warrants, as a legal concept, are given certain restrictions which are enumerated in the Amendments. Court orders, of which there are multiple, are also given protections as are enumerate both in the Amendments and by precedent. This is not a distinction without difference. That is very much an important difference if you want to present a legal argument (defense) for this.
I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for details concerning the difference in your particular jurisdiction.
Yeah, I figure it's probably best to be precise in language to avoid confusion and argument. This is a rather nuanced subject with potentially grave consequences. The more clarity and presentation of the root of the problem then the more likely we'll be able to communicate the dangers. The better we can communicate, the more receptive people tend to be. If we present a clear, logical, and accurate portrayal of the concerns then we're more likely to have our views listened to.
It may be futile but it is still worth doing. Of course, it may not be futile. It's important to do everything we can to make sure that any effort is not wasted or actually harmful. At least that's my belief, I'm not seeing any flaws in that belief. I am open to alternative interpretations.
That is an excellent example. I am not so sure that I can pin it to any one specific place and time. I've some speculation and some prioritization so I don't really have one specific instance so much as a cumulative affect. I'd speculate that there are some additive and some subtractive events with the former being more common.
I have no problem including Columbine as one of those events. There's the colloquialism that is, "Never let a crisis go to waste." I can think of many such occasions and I'm not really sure where I'd rank the tragedy that was Columbine in that scale. It's complex and subjective - just like many things are. Very few things are entirely black and white - in everybody's view. Hell, it's hard enough finding a majority and, I suspect, the majority is not always correct.
So, where the change was made and when the meaning changed are complicated. I suspect that it was when it became about retribution was where the largest changes occurred. I suspect that when people began abusing the concept of equal opportunity and rights was a good start. I think that when the term "civil rights" lost any real meaning was when the changes were made. I think it was when we stopped being rational and started being reactionary and emotional that it changed. It was when we started making laws and resorted to public shaming that I think we changed. I think it also was changed when we stopped expecting people to be accountable and when we stopped allowing failures to have negative consequences. I think it is really changed when we stopped upholding our end of the social contract while making demands on others.
That's a royal we, by the way. I certainly include Columbine in that list. Again, I stress that it's complicated and doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker nor does it fit in 140 characters or less. That's actually a part of the problem.
This might be one of those subjects where such pedantry is beneficial. It suits to serve clarity and leave less room for confusion while not insinuating things that are not true, intentionally or not. Specifically, I have no qualms with the current regulations concerning encryption - inasmuch as I'm familiar with them. At the same time, I am greatly concerned that those laws are not just subject to change but there are people who are actively seeking to alter them in ways that weaken our liberties, decrease our potential expectations of privacy, and put our data at greater risk to unauthorized access.
That is, if we're going to try to be specific. It could just as easily be summed up as, "Fuck that shit."
The only way for the FBI to win this in the long run is my [sic] making it illegal to manufacture "unhackable" devices.
If this is acted on, if they are forced to do so, then is that next step (the law that you mention) actually a that distant a leap? I think no. I think it is not that big a leap to make and thus I think this court order is a danger. One step back is too many. Unfortunately, we've a society that's lacking in solidarity. We play politics like a combination of a team sport, acting awards, celebrity gossip, yellow journalism, and a ritualized spectator sport.
The odds of us working together to make our voices heard are slightly lower than that of an individual lottery winner. And lest we try to blame someone else, let us realize that we've been failing to uphold our end of the social contract for a very long time. We have been distracted with beer and football (bread and circuses) and scrambling to engage in one-ups-manship, destructive in an additive manner, vengeful, deceitful, dishonest, and corrupt - even when we do get involved. We've become entitled, inattentive, reactionary, and greedy. We've ignored reason and responded to rhetoric. We are ruled by consent.
Speaking of rhetoric, I ask you - what are you going to do about it if it goes that far? Who will you blame for letting it reach that point? I'd submit that if you place that blame on one group of people, you're demonstrating the problem. It is fair, of course, to ask me the same questions. I'll answer honestly, "Fucked if I know. I'm doing anything I can think of."
It is not a difference without distinction to say that there's a difference between a warrant and a court order. This is a court order, a writ I think is one way of referring to it, and is entirely different than the warrants that are issued by the courts. There are several definitions (or usages) for the term 'warrant.' This is not a warrant, however. It's an order. As such, the powers of which are constrained by different amendments. It does have some interesting precedent aspects that need to be weighed while disregarding emotions. This is, I feel, an appropriate action for Apple to be taking and a just time to stand against an order.
On a broader scale, it can mean that this is true not just for this specific model but to extend to other models and products. If we're going to argue a slippery slope (but not always a fallacy) then we could reason that it would become easier to have done to other things - like other model phones or, perhaps, to other compute devices that are ostensibly in our control. From there, it's a step in name only if they declare such devices illegal. I do not think that's actually a logical fallacy but is a realistic potential.
Basically, the private enterprise has provided something for the masses that allows a modicum of privacy and security and the government is seeking a way to justify giving a court order to circumvent that process. I am not really sure that this sets a precedent that is good. On a broader scale, does it outweigh the potential harm to society as a whole? To that, I say no. I say this does set a bad precedent and the technical merits are insignificant.
I do not care how bad these people were nor how much harm they committed. I do not care that more harm may be had in the future. I can think of no realistic risk that would make me compromise on this. I applaud Apple for their stance. Regardless of the technical merit, this is a bad precedent and one that should not stand. This is happening, oddly enough, at a time when we've got a fucked Supreme Court...
If we want to be pedantic, and technically correct, we should probably say that the security is compromised. I'd say that the crypto still fine, in and of itself, really - so much as the implementation of it or, in this case, a broader sense that is "security" has been reduced. At least I'm pretty sure of this? The crypto is still sound, the math is still fine. The implementation has been worked around and the security is lessened accordingly. If that makes more sense...
The hackers, probably even professional ones who are employed at the nation-state level and have incredible resources to throw at it, are already far from discouraged, regardless of what Apple has to say on the subject. This is not going to dissuade the adept, resourced, and inventive. This is going to be seen as a challenge and a matter of pride as well as a security matter or advantage to some subset of these people. Nobody is dissuaded because of this, this invites the exact type of people who are keen on doing so and have the means to actually act on it - with varied levels of success, of course.
So, I don't think it's gonna impact that. All "hackers" aren't criminals and inept script kiddies and there are some adept hardware hackers with vast amounts of resources available. The very best of the best will see that if they can do this, they are famous for life. They may be reviled by some, but they'll be famous. I think responsible disclosure for such a find would be to put it out in the public immediately. That's not the kind of tool you want to leave restricted to one. Fuck the consequences - if we all know about it then none of us are fooled. That would be the responsible way to do it and ensure that they're well funded, paid huge speaking fees, and able to work as a consultant for any price they want to name.
No, nobody is dissuaded at all by this. This is not a statement about their possibility of success. I am not smart enough to know if it can or can not be done. I am not an authority and not qualified to opine. The only real point is that there's not much more attention than that phone has right now in the eyes of the capable hackers. They are focused on it with a laser-like-focus.
I imagine, with history being as big as it is, someone can say that nothing is unprecedented. It's a pretty pedantic crowd. Thus, it's kind of meaningless. What more concession than the current laws regarding encryption can you ask for? So far, they're just blathering about it - the laws are just fine and working as intended. There are some folks who might want to change them, there's some abuses, but the laws are okay as far as I can think of. What more would you have the government do? I guess you could ask them to not talk about it but so far it remains legal.
You don't see it odd to say that YouTube is trying to "completely silence anyone exercising free speech" while linking to a page on YouTube? 'Cause I see some irony there - like, real irony. Even by internet standards, that's ironic. You don't see that? I don't even have to click the link to see that.
That probably is for the best. I could think of a few cases where it might be handy to still have the functionality but with a different profile only. I'd think that would be optimal, if possible.
Hypocrite much? I don't typically use the term SJW but anyone who uses the term MRA deserves it.
Fucking SJW asshole.
You posted AC and I'm going to quote you and add to it...
Folks, when you wear that SJW badge with pride you're attaching that AC's observation to your reputation - and they are correct. The sad thing is, you've had social justice co-opted by people who are not interested in social or justice - and sure as hell aren't warriors. It was, and is, a noble cause. However, it has been bastardized to include those, those speak with your name, and you adopt their reputation even if it is undeserved. The moniker is so abused as to be nearly meaningless to some of you - and you know who you are, if you're honest with yourselves. I don't know what to tell you but that's how it is.
Fix it or accept the consequences - you can't stop stupid people. Good luck, if you want to disassociate with them and still retain usage of the moniker. As an *old* Libertarian, I've been dealing with the same problem for years. I don't have a good solution. Right now, I try novellas - some things are too complicated for a bumper sticker.
There was a time when the title of "Social Justice Warrior" was a noble badge to wear. It wasn't even attached to a particular political party, depending on perspective. Remember, both words ('social' and 'justice') are very subjective terms and have been a sliding scale throughout history. If you believe you and your beliefs are the paragon of morality then, I can assure you, history says you're wrong. Such has never been the case in the history of humankind - it surely is not true now. If your ego is so big as to make that assumption, I'd like you to look at the egos of the people in the past and engage in some intellectual honesty and introspection.
At any rate, I'll skip the novella. That's the gist of it. 'Cause if you want a novella....
I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but we can't actually have that discussion. I've tried. Oh, it gets voted up here - it gets very few replies. Sometimes I'm called an asshole or told I don't get it, but nobody seems willing to tell me what I'm missing - even when I approach sincerely, openly, and politely.
It has caused me to resort to drawing my own conclusions based on reason, observation, and logic. You could even say that I've approached it scientifically, I've repeated the experiment in multiple ways. So, it's no great thing that I've discovered. It is that some people are not interested in equal opportunities but they're interested in equal outcomes.
The thing is, that doesn't appear to be anything that is open to discussion either. There don't appear to be many proposing rational solutions to anything. There aren't even people willing to articulate what their real concern is. I've even attempted to discuss issues concerning the idea that the lowest-common-denominator is a success. That appears to also be a non-starter.
I'd wager that open conversation, even intellectually honest debate, might be a good starting point but we seem unable to even approach things with a rational mind.
If I may, I'll share a thought. It's related - but may not seem so at first.
The author of To Kill a Mockingbird just died. She was an older lady and her work was actually mandatory for a great many people. She was an asset and gave the world a good thing. Let it be said, they're one of those people who gave more than they took. We owe her our gratitude.
Now, how is that relevant? In her book, you might have noticed a trend. It is in other period works and goes back through history. This is just an observation, correlation is not assured. But, throughout history, the public has often been aware of justice. They visited the court. If you remember, the court was overflowing with regular people. If you look, court was carried out in public - with the approval of the public, as was punishment, or at least sentencing. It still is public and that's my point. My point is, when did anyone here last spend a vacation day observing the courts to ensure justice was being observed and handed down appropriately?
I'll leave it to you to draw the connection. It's there. It should become obvious. It may even seem like victim blaming but it is not - nor is it a gender thing. No, the problem is us. That is us, a collective.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn that Slashdot formatting. It appears to have removed your citation. Think you could post it again?
Remember Opera's CSS support and "fit to width?"
Complex question and best answered that if you have to ask, you're doing enough.
But, a more accurate question is how much do you trust the people who maintain your distro and how much effort are you willing to undertake. You can compile your own kernel. You can not. You can use a bleeding edge kernel. You can compile an older version that supports something that is now depreciated. You can patch. You can do anything you want. It's up to you and all about how much effort you want to put into it and what benefits you expect to get. You're quite probably fine (kernel related) just sticking with your regular updates via aptitude and the default repositories.
Nah, it should be rewritten in Rust, hosted on the cloud, and in a container. If it fails, you automate recovery by spinning up a new instance. Hell, it doesn't even run on iron, never mind big iron! You don't need an admin, when it burns down you spin up a new one.
*snickers*
(That sort of a reply would not surprise me.)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has read them - all. Yup... I think I've read 'em all - every last one. Some of 'em are damned clever. They put some serious effort into them. Annoyingly enough, they almost always get a bite. There's always someone who wants to shut them up. There's always someone to express their outrage. It's a ritual and I dare say it's an essential part of what makes Slashdot. We can say any retarded thing we want - and be judged accordingly. That might not seem important but I say it's an essential quality.
That's how I understand it but I too am not an expert. I also understand that it's most important when you leave the .onion domains and enter the "clearnet." (When using it as a proxy, for example.) I guess if someone can see enough of the internet at one time then they can also use traffic shaping and timing to single out a user. So long as you remain on the .onion networks you are reasonably safe - some say completely safe.
Now, safe means that you are safe technically. It does not mean you're safe otherwise. You still need to avoid identifying browser characteristics/fingerprints. You need to not leak personal information of any kind and that includes keeping scripting off (or very selective and with great attention to care) and not installing extensions that single you out or may leak the data to a third party. Assuming one is attentive enough to practice safe-hex, they're reasonable secure - with a high level of certainty.
As always, safety needs to be weighed against your goals and the risks you're willing to take to reach them. Security is a process, not an application and nothing is completely secure.
That sounds more exact so it's probably correct and I'll defer to you. I could only be completely sure that it's kind of strict and they've got a hearing - I've heard most of the terminology and am kind of familiar with most of the concepts, enough to know they'd toss that discarded bag from evidence in a heartbeat if it had been picked up and handled by someone else or there was any reason to believe it *might* have been handled by anyone else. They're kind of anal about that. There's also the fruit of a poisoned tree that is along those lines. It's kind of an essential concept, if you ask me.
While I'm at it, it's often the differences between a civil and a criminal offense and procedure. There are different burdens of proof as well as differences in protections. There are differences in applicable penalties. I'm sure you know this but I find those are the things I most notice being given odd beliefs. There's also the belief that it's "belief beyond all doubt." I'm not actually sure why people would believe that's the case but, I see it often. I can only imagine you spend a lot of time shaking your head.
Thank you for the correction/addition/clarification. Duly noted and hopefully archived in my head. I stress again, I am not a lawyer. I know enough law to know that all lawyers are insane and it is not their fault. The whole system is insanity, all the way down to contract law. If you weren't sane when you started, you will be by the time you're done.
That's actually partially your fault. That's a royal you. It is not just you personally.
The lady who wrote To Kill a Mockingbird died yesterday. If you read the book, you might remember a scene from within that book. In that scene (and in the movie), that the courtroom was full of people. Folks of all types showed up. They went, for better or worse, to see that what they believed was justice was served. Why is that important?
There's a part of the social contract that is watching the government to ensure that it has your best interest at heart and to ensure that they're meting out justice. When was the last time you spent a day of your vacation down at the local district court for observation? Courtrooms are open to the public, as the general rule.
As a civilian you are even granted access to a law library, at no cost, somewhere in your State or county. You'll be able to get access if you want to look something up or learn something. It may be provisioned by a local university, a State library, or even a damp basement office in the back of your local district court or even in the old Superior Court located across town - but it's there. Every county in the United States has at least a district court.
It is an unfortunate, but natural, side-effect that a body that is given little oversight will try to increase its power. This will happen so long as we make no effort to observe the courts and then speak out against their transgressions. One might even conjecture that the observation of the courts and the freedom of speech are the two most accessible ways for an individual to impart change.
We have, for too long, relied on the media to give us our coverage instead of taking the time to observe in person and speak out accordingly. Intended or not, unfortunate or not, improper or not, this is the natural progression when power is not held in check. It does require a modicum of solidarity and self-sacrifice. It does mean accepting accountability as an individual and as a collective. Relying on the ACLU or EFF to make observations and speak on our behalf is not adequate.
Alternatively, we can keep on doing what we have been doing.
I am not a legal scholar but I am a curios onlooker. I've not yet read all the documentation concerning this case and not all of it has come to light.
However, I have a question. Who, specifically, has been charged with an offense at this time? If the answer is nobody, and if there is no specific defending party - at this time, then by what authority does the court issue this writ?
I do not know. If they're doing a post-mortem trial, what authority does that have in the US? Have they actually followed the process to have a posthumous trial? If not, and depending on the limits imposed, that might actually be a valid argument to present for a ruling. Has anyone published Apple's legal response and see what they're actually challenging and what arguments they are going to make?
I am not entirely familiar with it, nor a lawyer. I do have a bit of an understanding of law and procedure. I should think that they'd be exploring that argument as well but I do not believe I've heard that mentioned specifically.
I am not a lawyer but will add that I believe the above would be argued in something known as an "evidentiary hearing." At an evidentiary hearing one argues the validity of the evidence and its admissibility is judged based on what a reasonable person would conclude based on precedent and applicable regulations. There are strict circumstances that apply as to what is and isn't allowed to be included as evidence. What is allowed as evidence is judged based on its weight but a reasonable doubt would be that the person picking up the example bag might have tampered with the evidence - breaking the chain of custody.
If it is not life-threatening and the situation warrants, the protocol is for the next officer to stop and observe the dropped bag from the example. 'Reasonable person' is an actual legal concept and if a reasonable person would doubt the validity of the evidence (or if it violates another law or its acquisition does) then it doesn't get admitted as evidence.
I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for the regulations concerning the 'rules of evidence' in your particular jurisdiction. I do believe there's a Wikipedia article on this matter but I make no claims about the validity of said article as I've not actually read it.
Surely, you're not actually surprised by that? I hope you weren't expecting anything different. In my experience, those who scream the loudest are often those who understand the least. Obviously, that's not universal and subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
That's because this is not a warrant. Warrants, as a legal concept, are given certain restrictions which are enumerated in the Amendments. Court orders, of which there are multiple, are also given protections as are enumerate both in the Amendments and by precedent. This is not a distinction without difference. That is very much an important difference if you want to present a legal argument (defense) for this.
I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for details concerning the difference in your particular jurisdiction.
Yeah, I figure it's probably best to be precise in language to avoid confusion and argument. This is a rather nuanced subject with potentially grave consequences. The more clarity and presentation of the root of the problem then the more likely we'll be able to communicate the dangers. The better we can communicate, the more receptive people tend to be. If we present a clear, logical, and accurate portrayal of the concerns then we're more likely to have our views listened to.
It may be futile but it is still worth doing. Of course, it may not be futile. It's important to do everything we can to make sure that any effort is not wasted or actually harmful. At least that's my belief, I'm not seeing any flaws in that belief. I am open to alternative interpretations.
That is an excellent example. I am not so sure that I can pin it to any one specific place and time. I've some speculation and some prioritization so I don't really have one specific instance so much as a cumulative affect. I'd speculate that there are some additive and some subtractive events with the former being more common.
I have no problem including Columbine as one of those events. There's the colloquialism that is, "Never let a crisis go to waste." I can think of many such occasions and I'm not really sure where I'd rank the tragedy that was Columbine in that scale. It's complex and subjective - just like many things are. Very few things are entirely black and white - in everybody's view. Hell, it's hard enough finding a majority and, I suspect, the majority is not always correct.
So, where the change was made and when the meaning changed are complicated. I suspect that it was when it became about retribution was where the largest changes occurred. I suspect that when people began abusing the concept of equal opportunity and rights was a good start. I think that when the term "civil rights" lost any real meaning was when the changes were made. I think it was when we stopped being rational and started being reactionary and emotional that it changed. It was when we started making laws and resorted to public shaming that I think we changed. I think it also was changed when we stopped expecting people to be accountable and when we stopped allowing failures to have negative consequences. I think it is really changed when we stopped upholding our end of the social contract while making demands on others.
That's a royal we, by the way. I certainly include Columbine in that list. Again, I stress that it's complicated and doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker nor does it fit in 140 characters or less. That's actually a part of the problem.
This might be one of those subjects where such pedantry is beneficial. It suits to serve clarity and leave less room for confusion while not insinuating things that are not true, intentionally or not. Specifically, I have no qualms with the current regulations concerning encryption - inasmuch as I'm familiar with them. At the same time, I am greatly concerned that those laws are not just subject to change but there are people who are actively seeking to alter them in ways that weaken our liberties, decrease our potential expectations of privacy, and put our data at greater risk to unauthorized access.
That is, if we're going to try to be specific. It could just as easily be summed up as, "Fuck that shit."
The only way for the FBI to win this in the long run is my [sic] making it illegal to manufacture "unhackable" devices.
If this is acted on, if they are forced to do so, then is that next step (the law that you mention) actually a that distant a leap? I think no. I think it is not that big a leap to make and thus I think this court order is a danger. One step back is too many. Unfortunately, we've a society that's lacking in solidarity. We play politics like a combination of a team sport, acting awards, celebrity gossip, yellow journalism, and a ritualized spectator sport.
The odds of us working together to make our voices heard are slightly lower than that of an individual lottery winner. And lest we try to blame someone else, let us realize that we've been failing to uphold our end of the social contract for a very long time. We have been distracted with beer and football (bread and circuses) and scrambling to engage in one-ups-manship, destructive in an additive manner, vengeful, deceitful, dishonest, and corrupt - even when we do get involved. We've become entitled, inattentive, reactionary, and greedy. We've ignored reason and responded to rhetoric. We are ruled by consent.
Speaking of rhetoric, I ask you - what are you going to do about it if it goes that far? Who will you blame for letting it reach that point? I'd submit that if you place that blame on one group of people, you're demonstrating the problem. It is fair, of course, to ask me the same questions. I'll answer honestly, "Fucked if I know. I'm doing anything I can think of."
It is not a difference without distinction to say that there's a difference between a warrant and a court order. This is a court order, a writ I think is one way of referring to it, and is entirely different than the warrants that are issued by the courts. There are several definitions (or usages) for the term 'warrant.' This is not a warrant, however. It's an order. As such, the powers of which are constrained by different amendments. It does have some interesting precedent aspects that need to be weighed while disregarding emotions. This is, I feel, an appropriate action for Apple to be taking and a just time to stand against an order.
On a broader scale, it can mean that this is true not just for this specific model but to extend to other models and products. If we're going to argue a slippery slope (but not always a fallacy) then we could reason that it would become easier to have done to other things - like other model phones or, perhaps, to other compute devices that are ostensibly in our control. From there, it's a step in name only if they declare such devices illegal. I do not think that's actually a logical fallacy but is a realistic potential.
Basically, the private enterprise has provided something for the masses that allows a modicum of privacy and security and the government is seeking a way to justify giving a court order to circumvent that process. I am not really sure that this sets a precedent that is good. On a broader scale, does it outweigh the potential harm to society as a whole? To that, I say no. I say this does set a bad precedent and the technical merits are insignificant.
I do not care how bad these people were nor how much harm they committed. I do not care that more harm may be had in the future. I can think of no realistic risk that would make me compromise on this. I applaud Apple for their stance. Regardless of the technical merit, this is a bad precedent and one that should not stand. This is happening, oddly enough, at a time when we've got a fucked Supreme Court...
Note: Verbiage specific and intentional.
If we want to be pedantic, and technically correct, we should probably say that the security is compromised. I'd say that the crypto still fine, in and of itself, really - so much as the implementation of it or, in this case, a broader sense that is "security" has been reduced. At least I'm pretty sure of this? The crypto is still sound, the math is still fine. The implementation has been worked around and the security is lessened accordingly. If that makes more sense...
The hackers, probably even professional ones who are employed at the nation-state level and have incredible resources to throw at it, are already far from discouraged, regardless of what Apple has to say on the subject. This is not going to dissuade the adept, resourced, and inventive. This is going to be seen as a challenge and a matter of pride as well as a security matter or advantage to some subset of these people. Nobody is dissuaded because of this, this invites the exact type of people who are keen on doing so and have the means to actually act on it - with varied levels of success, of course.
So, I don't think it's gonna impact that. All "hackers" aren't criminals and inept script kiddies and there are some adept hardware hackers with vast amounts of resources available. The very best of the best will see that if they can do this, they are famous for life. They may be reviled by some, but they'll be famous. I think responsible disclosure for such a find would be to put it out in the public immediately. That's not the kind of tool you want to leave restricted to one. Fuck the consequences - if we all know about it then none of us are fooled. That would be the responsible way to do it and ensure that they're well funded, paid huge speaking fees, and able to work as a consultant for any price they want to name.
No, nobody is dissuaded at all by this. This is not a statement about their possibility of success. I am not smart enough to know if it can or can not be done. I am not an authority and not qualified to opine. The only real point is that there's not much more attention than that phone has right now in the eyes of the capable hackers. They are focused on it with a laser-like-focus.
I imagine, with history being as big as it is, someone can say that nothing is unprecedented. It's a pretty pedantic crowd. Thus, it's kind of meaningless. What more concession than the current laws regarding encryption can you ask for? So far, they're just blathering about it - the laws are just fine and working as intended. There are some folks who might want to change them, there's some abuses, but the laws are okay as far as I can think of. What more would you have the government do? I guess you could ask them to not talk about it but so far it remains legal.
You don't see it odd to say that YouTube is trying to "completely silence anyone exercising free speech" while linking to a page on YouTube? 'Cause I see some irony there - like, real irony. Even by internet standards, that's ironic. You don't see that? I don't even have to click the link to see that.
That probably is for the best. I could think of a few cases where it might be handy to still have the functionality but with a different profile only. I'd think that would be optimal, if possible.
Hypocrite much? I don't typically use the term SJW but anyone who uses the term MRA deserves it.
Fucking SJW asshole.
You posted AC and I'm going to quote you and add to it...
Folks, when you wear that SJW badge with pride you're attaching that AC's observation to your reputation - and they are correct. The sad thing is, you've had social justice co-opted by people who are not interested in social or justice - and sure as hell aren't warriors. It was, and is, a noble cause. However, it has been bastardized to include those, those speak with your name, and you adopt their reputation even if it is undeserved. The moniker is so abused as to be nearly meaningless to some of you - and you know who you are, if you're honest with yourselves. I don't know what to tell you but that's how it is.
Fix it or accept the consequences - you can't stop stupid people. Good luck, if you want to disassociate with them and still retain usage of the moniker. As an *old* Libertarian, I've been dealing with the same problem for years. I don't have a good solution. Right now, I try novellas - some things are too complicated for a bumper sticker.
There was a time when the title of "Social Justice Warrior" was a noble badge to wear. It wasn't even attached to a particular political party, depending on perspective. Remember, both words ('social' and 'justice') are very subjective terms and have been a sliding scale throughout history. If you believe you and your beliefs are the paragon of morality then, I can assure you, history says you're wrong. Such has never been the case in the history of humankind - it surely is not true now. If your ego is so big as to make that assumption, I'd like you to look at the egos of the people in the past and engage in some intellectual honesty and introspection.
At any rate, I'll skip the novella. That's the gist of it. 'Cause if you want a novella....
I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but we can't actually have that discussion. I've tried. Oh, it gets voted up here - it gets very few replies. Sometimes I'm called an asshole or told I don't get it, but nobody seems willing to tell me what I'm missing - even when I approach sincerely, openly, and politely.
It has caused me to resort to drawing my own conclusions based on reason, observation, and logic. You could even say that I've approached it scientifically, I've repeated the experiment in multiple ways. So, it's no great thing that I've discovered. It is that some people are not interested in equal opportunities but they're interested in equal outcomes.
The thing is, that doesn't appear to be anything that is open to discussion either. There don't appear to be many proposing rational solutions to anything. There aren't even people willing to articulate what their real concern is. I've even attempted to discuss issues concerning the idea that the lowest-common-denominator is a success. That appears to also be a non-starter.
I'd wager that open conversation, even intellectually honest debate, might be a good starting point but we seem unable to even approach things with a rational mind.
If I may, I'll share a thought. It's related - but may not seem so at first.
The author of To Kill a Mockingbird just died. She was an older lady and her work was actually mandatory for a great many people. She was an asset and gave the world a good thing. Let it be said, they're one of those people who gave more than they took. We owe her our gratitude.
Now, how is that relevant? In her book, you might have noticed a trend. It is in other period works and goes back through history. This is just an observation, correlation is not assured. But, throughout history, the public has often been aware of justice. They visited the court. If you remember, the court was overflowing with regular people. If you look, court was carried out in public - with the approval of the public, as was punishment, or at least sentencing. It still is public and that's my point. My point is, when did anyone here last spend a vacation day observing the courts to ensure justice was being observed and handed down appropriately?
I'll leave it to you to draw the connection. It's there. It should become obvious. It may even seem like victim blaming but it is not - nor is it a gender thing. No, the problem is us. That is us, a collective.