Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 08:01am PT
|
Privacy doesn't include putting a locked armored van in a thoroughfare......among a long list of other things that are not your constitutional right to privacy.
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 08:43am PT
|
Regarding Snowden,
(God knows I've never actually influenced anyone's thought but here we go again.)
If Snowden released private and protected personal information then isn't he the corrupt agent? Are his supporters for freedom of information? And if so, why should we collectively ignore free information? To what end? For what cause?
I'm not fixed in my opinion and these questions merely represent the horizon of my interest. As I don't have anything to hide, I also wonder something something something.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 10:07am PT
|
If you want privacy then don't put your sh#t on the public internet.
Having "sh#" on your personal, encrypted phone has no relation to the "public internet."
Making a point-to-point phone call, text, or email over encrypted protocols has no relation to the "public internet."
The government has SO changed the terms of the debate that THEY have forced US to literally move the bar of our expectations, and THAT is the most outrageous part the the "privacy debate" today. What we took for granted regarding privacy a decade ago turns out to not even then have been what reality actually was! Then, instead of rolling the HEADS of the pricks that were raping us then, we just capitulated and said, "Ohhh... okay. If it keeps me even an unmeasurably shred more 'safe,' then I guess it's what you have to do."
And now we DEBATE how much rapage we shall submit to, rather than to say flat-out: "Stop raping us! NOW! Or there WILL be consequences!"
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
"In a tale, Christ comes back to earth in Seville at the time of the Inquisition. He performs a number of miracles (echoing miracles from the Gospels). The people recognize him and adore him, but he is arrested by Inquisition leaders and sentenced to be burnt to death the next day. The Grand Inquisitor visits him in his cell to tell him that the Church no longer needs him. The main portion of the text is devoted to the Inquisitor explaining to Jesus why his return would interfere with the mission of the Church.
The Inquisitor frames his denunciation of Jesus around the three questions Satan asked Jesus during the temptation of Christ in the desert. These three are the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. The Inquisitor states that Jesus rejected these three temptations in favor of freedom, but the Inquisitor thinks that Jesus has misjudged human nature. He does not believe that the vast majority of humanity can handle the freedom which Jesus has given them. The Inquisitor thus implies that Jesus, in giving humans freedom to choose, has excluded the majority of humanity from redemption and doomed it to suffer.
Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be an atheist, Ivan also has the Inquisitor saying that the Catholic Church follows "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction," i.e. the Devil, Satan. He says "We are not with Thee, but with him, and that is our secret! For centuries have we abandoned Thee to follow him." For he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and for humanity to unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to "death and destruction," they will be happy along the way."
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 10:23am PT
|
fMarlow,
today is Sunday[does this justify a sermon?] but I will make do with my ignorance rather than bite on a promise that we could all lose our ignorance. For proof: I do see a lot of purely stupid Christians but in making my choice I have taken on the burden of freedom.
|
|
Spiny Norman
Social climber
Boring, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 10:24am PT
|
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Certainly a phone is a personal effect and any data on that personal effect should be interpreted as "papers." The question then boils down to what is "unreasonable" — and to what extent everyone must cede a measure of security so that a small minority might have warrated searches of their papers executed.
The fundamental argument of Apple — and of essentially the entire technical security community — is that it is impossible to execute the type of search currently sought by the FBI without also violating the right of the vast majority "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."
IANA constitutional L, but when looking at the 4th Amendment, it would appear that that first sentence conveys the primary thrust of the passage.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 10:28am PT
|
One incident that may well give valuable security information does not Slippery Slope into
a future loss of privacy mandate.
You made your point, Apple, and you have been congratulated.
Now quietly unlock the phone
With Dingus on this one
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 10:32am PT
|
SN,
without compromising the security of all iPhones
I do see your link but let's see your summarizing skills?
How so?
Put the iphone in liquid nitrogen. Sever the RAM memory. Warm it up and read it.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 10:37am PT
|
SN,
so can't you summarize?
Drop a bomb. Let's see some pieces fly? Or isn't paper all that good?
|
|
Spiny Norman
Social climber
Boring, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 10:38am PT
|
Why should I summarize again when there's a careful and proficient summary at the first link above? And I already posted the Abstract for the second document upthread.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 10:45am PT
|
I have read that paper and they merely suggest difficulties.
It is up to the Big Apple to declare that the task places an "unduly burden on them," because such and such is the case.
The papers you cite do not exactly know but only speculate how Apple has their security locks.
Maybe I have missed something and you can pull it out from between the sentences?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 11:02am PT
|
SN,
to give you an analogy about simply citing the document.
Christians say, "here the proof is in the Bible" and you suggest here the proof is in these papers because they are authorities.
Well, the bar here on ST is a little higher than merely spouting lip service as to the source. Show us what you conclude from their presentation.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 11:11am PT
|
Again, Norton, Apple probably cannot do that without compromising the security of all iOS devices including all iPhones and tablets.
Spiny, I admit to knowing very little about how Iphones are actually built.
You are saying that Apple cannot give the unlock code or new password of whatever to the FBI without compromising the security of MY Iphone and all hundreds of millions of others all over the world?
Somehow I just have a lot of trouble believing that but please help my understand?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 11:29am PT
|
Norton,
please have patience with SN; it takes a while to find something that doesn't exist!
|
|
overwatch
climber
Arizona
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 11:33am PT
|
Come on, Spiny, you have been given your assignment now finish your homework.
Spiny trying to keep up with Dingus' work load
|
|
Spiny Norman
Social climber
Boring, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 11:34am PT
|
That's correct, Norton.
That is Apple's argument and there is every reason to believe that that Apple's argument is correct. Not least because they will have to be able to defend their position in what we may assume will be ongoing court proceedings.
Apple has no motive to stake out a technically indefensible position here. They could, after all, have just caved to the FBI's request — and most people (as several on this thread have already demonstrated) would not care.
So ask yourself: why is Apple drawing a line here?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 12:15pm PT
|
monolith,
again, are you passing the Bible as fact? I just don't buy that stupid line of sh#t.
I have read these papers and have reported above what they report as the case. Their recommendation seems unsupportable given what they admit they do not know about Apple's iphone works.
The hardware and software used in the iphone is Apple's proprietary design. These authors admit they do not know how and how much security Apple has on this iphone. Case rests: it is Apple turn to talk> Or is Spiny Norman going to present his proof read case and not an abstract?
The evidence simply is not in these papers! What the hell? can't you guys conclude a damn thing and report on it with statements from the document to substantiate your claims?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
So ask yourself: why is Apple drawing a line here?
Because they have sold their iphone as invincible and it simply is not. They have some face to save.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!