DrJBHL

Administrations come and go, true. But some 'things' always stay the same since they do not depend on the current administration. Besides, there was a reason why that plan was made. Just because it was a different administration, does not mean the reason was no longer valid - US foreign policy has been pretty consistent throughout all these years and all the different administrations.

Sarkozy was quite the 'cowboy' (perhaps to make up for his own small stature). He loved everything to do with the US. And Blair was not much different - Blair, Bush and Sarkozy. What a trio!

Quoting psychoak,

reply 150

Iraq, like much of the Middle East, is three factions, Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab.  We owe this to the way the UK split them up, so they are indeed at fault for such things.   They all hate each other, they're all tribal cultures, and they all want their own country.  The Kurds want Kurdestan, the Shia and Sunni Arabs just want to be running Iraq.

No contest about that here, as you know if you read my previous post regarding Arab tribal mentality.

You see, I don't buy that. At all. I don't think Bush cared a tiny bit about what happened to the Iraqis. That 'lets bring Democracy to the savages' was just a poor excuse to start the war. Personally he wanted revenge for the attempt on his father's life, that I believe.

Completely different situation. The UK at the time was not using Fiat currency, its currency was backed by its gold reserves. If the Petrodollar system collapses (and it will, sooner or later) the US will lose its permission to simply print more money to get out of financial holes. The number of dollars in existence will then far surpass actual demand (since they are no longer required to buy oil), and you know how the law of supply and demand works: the value of the dollar will *suddenly* come tumbling down. This is the classical definition of hyperinflation: extremely rapid or out of control inflation.

Furthermore, the petrodollar allows the US to buy oil with a currency that it can print at will. When that is no longer true, it will have to pay for oil in something that has REAL value.

There appear to be posts missing, me thinks this thread was pruned, or perhaps I dreamed replying yesterday...

Well, well. Guess Doc was right.

Yup, this case was just the thin edge of a much wider wedge.

However, I do not can not agree with James Comey about Apple's 'great' security..... nor would the thousands of stars who had their accounts hacked and had their personal photos uploaded to the internet for all to see.   And yes, they all should have sued Apple big time for the breach

Hopefully judges in the future follow suit and deny government bids such as this, otherwise it'll be open slather on everybodys electronic privacy, and not just in the US.  Other countries tend to adopt US precedents and I don't want that kind of crap coming here, where government want to know the ins and outs of a cat's arse.

Your paranoia is deeply misplaced, as someone who knows from a genius programmer family member how easy it is to get into secured systems, I can guarantee that nothing the public has been commonly using since the dawn of the internet was actually secure.  The only serious limitation on the NSA has been the amount of content.  It's just not possible for them to actually look through everything, or even collect everything.  I expect the iPhone isn't at all secure either, and it's simply a matter of the government spending the resources to crack into them that makes them want to harass Apple to do it for them.  Why do work you can legally compel someone else to do for you?

They already have a legal search warrant.  The only possible legal barrier here is breaking the encryption, which is a crime thanks to our enterprising fools in D.C., but I highly doubt that applies to the government.

The precedent isn't for getting into people's phones, it's for forcing Apple to do it for them.

Not talking about any gun stuff...look at the OP. I'm talking Privacy, and trying to force a company to break its own software.

And it's not just about search warrants, but legal precedent expanding the government's power drastically.

It's true that most -if not all- electronic devices aren't save, but alot of time & effort is needed to get specific systems open. Once quantum-based computer become real, the time for some of these hacking practices will be reduced to almost negligible time. You sure as hell can count the NSA in as topspot buyer!!

Frankly, all terrorists know this - and those which try to be conspirative about their whereabouts & contacts won't use ANY electronic devices at all. Or, use them to lay down false tracks/evidence.

Ofc there are always these which are careless & display a "after me the deluge"-type of thinking and don't give much about informational security or their buddies overseas, since they know they'll die.

Judging from the info given on this particular case, these alledged "terrorists" were not real terrorists at all, just pissed-off careless aggressives that turned massmurderers over a quarrel. Terrorism has become such a blatant politicised slang that is basically applied to anyone you wish to create a prejudgment in the media so noone comes complaining if individual rights are violated.

So just make that violation legal, and get it over with. You know that it will come anyway, sooner or later. If the can do it, if it is beneficial to their cause... some asian city-states already live in a near "glass case" society and their ability to do away with criminals & their general crimerate speaks for itself. And isn't there such a city in the US also (I remember I saw a documentairy on it, can't remember its name....) I'm all for making society more secure esp. if it prevents when innocents become victims at the hands of people that should've been locked up long before.

But don't be naive & think that this will somehow prevent terrorism from happening. The surveillance state is basically effective in dealing with low-profile criminals, mugging political opposition & free thinkers. Real criminals will always find a way to cover successfully cover their tracks.

I really doubt there's anyone on the planet who is at all aware of the goings on and would thus be weighing in on such a relatively obscure subject as this, that thinks Apple is altruistic.  Fortunately, their motive, and even their character on the whole, is irrelevant to the validity of the suit.  The feds have, in essence, asked for a court order requiring a company to do work for them, without reimbursement, that will damage the value of work they've already done.  What I find as scary as them pulling it off is the complete lack of any coverage pointing to this factor.

Don't generalize my position.

In this matter (the OP), Apple's position is entirely correct.

Well said.

It's not that A or B are evil, but their actions either are, or aren't, independent of their TRUE motivations.

Plus, nobody and nothing in this world is 100% good or 100% evil. But if you look at the bigger picture, at all their recent actions and their consequences (or potential consequences) for EVERYBODY, you can pretty much have a good idea on where they stand on the good/evil scale.