This makes me think of the Affordable Care Act, where it was once said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". If you were right, that pile of shit wouldn't have passed either, but here we are a few years later living with the consequences of politicians voting for something when they didn't know everything that was in it.
The FBI/DOJ argument is bad and they should feel bad. This is solely about precedent, and should they succeed, it will always be about "just this one phone", every time. You'd even think by now, with the AWA being some 200 years old now, give or take, that they'd have some better case law to rely upon.
Consider this: At some point the FBI/DOJ, in an investigation, has came across documents written in code or a locked safe that might contain evidence of a crime. But when has the government tried to compel Microsoft to help them decode those documents because their software was used to write them? When have they tried to compel the makers of Liberty safes to crack open one of their safes because it might have evidence contained inside? After all, their arguments are that because they write software or created the security features that are now getting in the way, they should be compelled to assist the government. They didn't, because even though these situations aren't exactly the same, they knew it was a dead end, it would never work and they could never compel those companies to do what they now want Apple to do. There is no precedent, because they would not have succeeded before and because what they are asking for is completely ridiculous. And they should never succeed in this.
I will say however, that should the FBI/DOJ ultimately succeed, I sincerely hope that Apple "accidentally" bricks that device and triggers a memory wipe too, so that iPhone can never provide them with what they seek and to make law enforcement in general think twice before asking Apple to help them.
I think this quote from Douglas Adams is even more on point:
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
While it is limited to discussing the President, I think it applies to pretty much any elected official.
Citizens continue to allow ignorant scared people to make such blatantly bad rules because they don't know any better. They are, largely, ignorant and scared too.
Fear it seems is a good way for governments to grab more control over the people they are supposed to serve. Here in the US, we have plenty of similarly bad rules and laws bred from ignorance and fear. For example, we've been given things like DHS, the TSA and NSA mass surveillance of Americans "because terrorism". This is a problem not unique to France.
One would hope that magistrate judge Sheri Pym knows better than to give any weight to an argument that is based on magic pixie dust fantasy-land arguments.
One can hope, but lets be honest based on the already dangerous ruling issued in this case by Pym...it's much more likely that Michael Ramos has been the one supplying Pym with the Pixie Dust in the first place.
I had a similar thought. Data caps basically make it useless anyway, unless they know something we don't with regards to what the FCC is planning or they have a long term plan for slowly increasing data caps.
In any case, I voted this insightful, and I vote that you should get your own section in the weekly top funny/insightful article too. Keep up the great commentary please.
Why limit RTBF to the internet? If such a right actually exists, and has to be applied globally, then let's do it.
So all those criminals have a right to have those past crimes forgotten right? Robbed a house a couple of years ago, so what, it's old news and no one cares now, strike it from the arrest record. That murder from 15 years ago went cold, let's forget about it. I haven't heard Snowden's name tossed around as much lately as it was a couple of years ago, I guess we've moved on. He has the right to be forgotten too, and come back home and move on with his life. All those registered sex offenders who did their time in prison, let's forget about it and remove them from that list (which, can be found online).
Point is, why is it OK to be forgotten on the internet, but not in any other aspect of your life? Especially when that aspect is records kept by the government?
Your wireless mouse is surely a remote detonator, prepare to surrender it.
A wireless mouse without a readily identifiable receiver attached to the laptop will require a full cavity search.
Leftover crumbs from your morning doughnut that managed to find their way into your keyboard are probably leftover explosive residue. Any attempts to use compressed air or shake out the crumbs is a sign you are trying to hide your misdeeds and a tacit admission of guilt. You will be detained and violated, probably including forced X-Rays, MRI's and enema's.
Laptops with wireless capability are especially suspect, since we are all master hackers and could easily take over the plane and cause the engine to blow itself up. Or take over the plane and fly into something. This may only apply to first class passengers, since you probably need a bit of elbow room to do your hacking.
The first step is to admit you have a problem. It would seem our congressmen haven't made it to this point, while the FCC has. These congressmen (and women) seem more intent on acting like alcoholics begging their newly sober friends to go out and have a drink with them, rather than representing the interests of the people that elected them.
Of course our government wants us to believe that strong encryption would be devastating to life. They can't protect us from terrorists, other nations or ourselves without it.
But, they don't want it to apply to them either. They wouldn't stop using encryption or give other countries a back door so that they can spy on America. Imagine the laughter if a Russian Diplomat stopped by and said, do you mind building us a back door to your military encryption, we promise not to use it very much and only with a warrant, it'll be completely safe. Even though it's essentially the same line of bullshit they try to cram down our throats, they wouldn't give in to the demand either, so why should we?
Maybe, if they wanted to have a real conversation, they could explain why it's vital for them to have encryption for the things THEY don't want others to know, but I am supposed to give up my right to keep things confidential from the spying eyes of other countries, or even my own. But they cant do that, because it will never fit in with their narrative of having to have control over everyone and everything while they enjoy the same privileges we are supposed to give up.
So, when they are ready and willing to put their money where their mouths are, and give up encryption too, I'll be ready and willing to side with them and support the anti-encryption cause for the good of kidnapped children everywhere.