re: Surprise Surprise - FBI wants Apple to unlock additional phones

quote:

---

FBI still needs a warrant signed by a judge, meaning they have a damn good reason for search and seizure. And if you think the judicial system is just handing those out at anytime, then you probably shouldn't live in the US

---

On this point, you would be stunned at some of the shite I have seen as the basis for PC on signed SW's. "Well you see your Honor, I am really really sure that there are drugs in there." "Sounds great, kick the door in and let me know what you find."

Not kidding at all, I reviewed one recently where the affiant stated that he trespassed on the private property and saw the item. So he retreated and used his observation to seek the SW. The Judge signed it... So don't tell me that judicial search warrants are sufficient protection of the 4th amendment.

quote:

---

So don't tell me that judicial search warrants are sufficient protection of the 4th amendment.

---

for a cell phone, a judge needs a lot more than what you stated to sign it.

quote:

---

Just curious...what if your child was murdered and the person that did it walked only because the authorities were not able to use information on his phone. You ok with that?

---

Honestly, I am going to kill this person so the phone is pretty damn irrelevant.

quote:

---

That means having the capacity to effect surveillance. And sometimes this means erring on the side of infringement on personal liberty or freedoms.

---

Where does it say that at?

quote:

---

Just curious...what if your child was murdered and the person that did it walked only because the authorities were not able to use information on his phone. You ok with that? Will you defend that person if they do "violate his civil rights"? (as some say) It seems some people are frightened that things could turn to doomsday. While some powers do lead to more power, I think it's important to remember that we don't live in the 1700s anymore.

---

We live in a free society. Taking away those freedoms sometimes leads to more security. More often it leads to more govt control.

From your argument above you could say no one deserves freedom because anyone could then murder a child. Therefore privacy shall be for no one. You should support this because you aren't a supporter of child murders, right?

That's essentially what's going on in the terrorsm vs privacy debate right now.

Your argument follows a familiar strategy of course. Point out a hypothetical, paint those against as in favor of the hypothetical, then argue that less freedom means more security. It's not a new argument, just a flawed one.

Hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical.

Would I sell my dog for 3538209583095820958205982305820581 dollars? OMG I'M A TERRIBLE DOG OWNER!

This Thread








Your head

This has nothing to do with 'common sense'


And if you would completely shite on the constitution and bill of rights doing EXACTLY what the terrorist want us to do in a knee jerk reaction over a single incident, I don't know what to tell you.

Have you not learned anything from the Snowden debacle?

Didn't the supreme court already rule,years ago,that your right to privacy is over,when you die?
It seems like this ruling came about,over a murder investigation,and the investigators were seeking for a warrant to look at the victims computer.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the FBI breaking into his phone. It should be their job to do so.

Asking the manufacturer of the phone to compromise the security of millions of other phones because the FBI doesn't like encryption is another mess altogether.

It's equivalent to asking for the key to your house because they are having trouble breaking into your neighbor's. They'll only use it with a warrant- they promise.

---

bingo