Yes, that would be the same Apple. And you can point out the hypocrisy. But that doesn't change the fact that *this* argument is about whether or not Apple should be forced to wrest control from the user. I don't blame you for being cynical, but your viewpoint contradicts the official narrative in this instance:
Mr. Cook and other Apple executives resolved not only to lock up customer data, but to do so in a way that would put the keys squarely in the hands of the customer, not the company.
It would have been interesting to know what Jobs would have done about a great many things starting with the Snowden revelations.
As I understand it, the court cannot extend the punishment beyond what is required to coerce the individual into complying, correct? So if the person refuses and also wipes their access from the system such that they cannot comply (basically nukes their profile from whatever database is used to store their login and permissions), what happens? Surely there would be some minimal sentence involved, but how severe would it be?
That's an interesting article to be sure, but I think it's falling into the false dichotomy fallacy. Apple isn't fighting to gain more control - "to become our lord and master" (if I may abuse the wording therein), but to allow the individual to *retain* control. Apple is arguing that it should not be forced to wrest control out of the hands of an individual.
And that is a true dichotomy. Either the individual has complete control, or they don't. They can, individually, choose to cede control, but it should still be their control to cede.
And if I understand correctly, there are still things that the US government cannot just 'writ' to obtain. If a person is ordered to divulge information by the judge, and the person refuses, the judge may hold the individual in contempt and impose a sentence for the purpose of coercion. But no amount of legal coercion can *force* a person to divulge the information. That information is out of the judge's hands for so long as the contemnor resists the coercion. To say that nothing should be out of reach of the judge is to allow the suspending the rights of the individual and applying greater coercion than our current legal system affords.
DRM suffers from a different logical flaw in that it is impossible to both show someone something (the movie, the movie decryption key) and subsequently hide it from them. In this case, the FBI et al have not been "shown" anything yet.
Part of me desperately wants to educate these clueless politicians enough so they understand that a hyperlink is nothing more than the name of a webpage. That would make this law like enforcing "copyright protection" against people talking about movies, songs, books, etc etc.
But then I recoil in horror to think they might try to build this backwards philosophy predicated on publicity rights....
This is exactly the danger when people say not to worry about ridiculous laws "because it's not enforceable" or "they won't bust you unless you're an asshole". Shit like this becomes a convenient tool to be used for petty vengeance.
that's not quite right. if the system works properly, both sides receive justice, it's just that one side generally doesn't like it. but you are right that equating the outcome of "the victims not being vindicated" with that of "the victims not receiving justice" is redefining "justice" to mean "vengeance".
that's a nice theory, but the reason encryption is so easily tied to horrible things is because people naturally want to hide the horrible things they do from others (notably law enforcement), and encryption is the tool to use to hide details of communication. I'm having a hard time seeing how to tie the *lack* of encryption to any existing natural tendency in connection with people doing horrible things.
unfortunately that's rarely how it works. bad laws based on bad philosophy almost never get repealed - they just get "refined" to not apply to this one hyperspecific circumstance, or they get broadened and create the potential for much more collateral damage. it reduces to trying to force the legislative body that they made a mistake (or acted maliciously).
I believe it's already been decided that FOIA requests are themselves not subject to FOIA - otherwise you could request all the documents relating to the strategy notes of how they planned to foil your FOIA.
> The crime is not failing to get a warrant. The crime is lying about the situation on the stand, or to the judge when you give a sworn statement to ask for a warrant.
As this act was carried out by a member of the law enforcement community, I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that it is, technically, by definition, not a crime. At least that's the only justification I can think of for charges not being immediately filed against this fine upstanding officer of the law.
> But that could easily be solved by posting the same document in its original format at the agency's website.
They don't even have to go that far. All they need to do is sign the damn thing. You would think (if you are a sane, rational being) that there should be a government agency charged with the mandate of improving safe and effective information technology practices (perhaps some sort of national cybersecurity division headed by some sort of national security agency), and could easily train other government agencies on how to use strong encrypti--- oh, I think I see the problem.
no, because there's nothing stopping those particular "good guys" from using their super secret "good guy encryption" to set up a service that other people can use to communicate. The only "good guys" allowed to use "good guy encryption" will be the military, the NSA, the FBI, and the DHS.
What, you mean like Ted Kennedy was 10 years ago? Does anyone know if he (maybe "still") supports the no-fly-list? Or is he a stereotypical politician, not concerned because he isn't one of the little people who have no recourse for getting themselves off the list?
RE: The Right to be Forgotten should be called The Right to Make Forget.
Damn good point, wish I had seen that earlier in the week. I still maintain the position that your "right to be forgotten" infringes on my "right to not be lobotomized".
I understand the privacy and reputation damage concerns, and it is a problem. I think the law should be rewritten to force actual publishers to amend errors and call attention to updates in a conspicuous way. Get that, and I will fully support forcing the search engines to giving precedence to the same, or calling . Because then we aren't talking about shoving stuff down a memory hole, but amending the index to correct errors.
> > The EC should establish actionable responsibilities for foreign investors by allowing a host country or affected third party, such as a trade union or a local community, to bring a claim (or, more modestly, a counter-claim) against a foreign investor in the very same process that is used to enforce foreign investor protections.
I don't think we should settle for half measures here. The state should be allowed to bring a claim, not just a counter-claim. If the state can only bring a counter claim, then the corporation can just drag that process out and bleed the state's coffers dry, which would be happening during or after the corporation *already* sucking up resources in the original claim.
Furthermore, if it shouldn't be the exact same process; it should be a process similar in arrangement. That means when the state brings a claim against a corporation, the state gets to put its own judge, lawyer, or lawmaker in the position of arbiter.
Oh, what's that, dear corporations? You admit that the ISDS process is unfair to begin with?