Just suppose that the company pushing strong encryption as its unique selling proposition was NOT a US company. Further supposing it hailed from a country that has one of those "free trade deals" with the US.
Now that company could haul the DOJ up against one of those tribunals that is "above" all the US courts. They would likely win...and there would benothing that the US government could do about it!
Finally! An analogy that works, and doesn't involve a car engine.
Oh dear - I'd better make up for that one!
It's a bit like the seat belt argument. Most of the time it is safer to wear a seat belt - however - very occasionally the seat belt is a liability - for example when there is a fire and you can't get out!
That is stil (in some sense) better than being an unsuccessful bastard.
According to Brian Clough (apparently) Don Revie's Leeds side didn't win their trophies "fairly" - but then again plenty of other sides have not played fairly - but still never won anything!
When Trump said that he preferred soldiers who didn't get captured (talking about John McCain) my response was that I preferred business men who didn't go bankrupt - so I am not exactly on his side - except in the following sense:
He is a maverick who doesn't have any debts to any third party (at least none that he has any intention of repaying). If he became president he would leave no dynasty behind him to carry on afterwards. He would also have almost zero support from any part of congress so would have difficulty doing much damage. The alternative of a more mainstream republican who could enact a rightwing agenda WITH the support of congress is frankly too terrifying to contemplate.
His fortune started with an inheritance. It's difficult to say if he would have gotten anywhere had he started out as a middle class worker with no startup capital from Klansman daddy.
Yes I'm aware of that- but his fortune is at least larger now than the one he started with - wich not everyone can say!
As a bystander to this election from the UK I can say that none of the candidates is flawless from my point of view. Within the democrat camp I prefer Sanders to Clinton but I can see major flaws in both. As usual I have major objections to all the republicans and Trump is the only one who has any redeeming features (the relative immunity from lobbyists and the fact that he isn't really a republican - he is a Liberal in the 19th century Brtish sense of the word). However just about any democrat candidate from the pre-Clinton past - and several republicans from that era would be preferable to any of the above.
Whatever else one can say about Trump, his fortune means that he is more or less immune to lobbying dollars.
That is a plus.
He has also demonstrated some skill in amassing his fortune.
Those who have some personal knowledge of him say that the things he is saying in public are simply designed to attract votes and don't reflect his personal opinions or intentions.
If you think that what he says is stupid/racist/whatever then effectively you are saying that the American public (or at least the segment that votes in republican primaries) is also stupid/racist/whatever.
We've seen people blindly follow GPS navigation directions that endangered the driver's safety, so would you expect people to follow a robot unquestioningly in an emergency? Yup. A study at Georgia Tech created a "guide robot" that was purposely made to be unreliable (and human participants in the study were told the robot was broken), but during a faked emergency, humans still followed the robot's bad directions to evacuate a building -- even when they conflicted with clearly-marked exit signs. [url] A "Data Science Machine" might have better intuition than teams of humans when it comes to big-data analysis. MIT researchers entered their data machine in three data science competitions, and the machine placed ahead of more than half of the human contestants. [url]
My deduction from this is that the MIT scientists are demonstrating the behaviour found by the team from Georgia Tech!