Ahhhhhhh

There IS some semblance of sanity in this crazy world...

Michale

The same "ya'all" that calls Republicans terrorists and arsonists and criminals.. :D

Michale

Like CW, you are occasionally the exception that proves the rule.. :D

Right back at you. Until you complain about the right with the same vigor you complain about the left you are just as guilty of that to which you accuse.

Oh, I do... It's just lost in the cacophony of noise here because EVERYONE complains about the Right.. :D

Michale

You don't really need to answer that, because the answer is self-evident..

Right back at you. Until you complain about the right with the same vigor you complain about the left you are just as guilty of that to which you accuse.

And it's uncanny that ya'all get bored at the EXACT same moment. The moment I bring up ya'all going against Obama. :D

For the record, I do disagree with Obama on this issue and sincerely hope he fails. Though I do not feel the need need to put it in the hysterical language of "condemn"...

But yet, ya'all didn't show such reluctance or restraint when it was Bush..

Why is that?? :D

THAT's my point..

I know ya'all disagree with Obama on this issue.. Just like ya'all disagreed with Bush on this issue..

The difference is with Obama, ya'all bite your tongues... With Bush, ya'all showed no such restraint..

How come?? :D

You don't really need to answer that, because the answer is self-evident..

Michale

Either that or we are bored of the conversation, time has passed and we recognize your need to get the last word in...

For the record, I do disagree with Obama on this issue and sincerely hope he fails. Though I do not feel the need need to put it in the hysterical language of "condemn"...

Not important enough to go up against Obama and condemn him....

Cat got ya'all's fingers?? :D

That's always a argument/debate ending observation...

Rank and file Weigantians want their unlimited and unbreakable privacy sooo so much...

Right up until the moment they have to fight Obama for it...

Then its:

{{{chiirrrrppppp}}} {{chirrrrpppppp}}

Michale

Go ahead...

Show me how much ya'all's privacy means to you...

Treat Obama exactly as you would treat a GOP POTUS....

Betcha don't.... :D

Michale

If you think your privacy is that important, I encourage you to hold the administration's feet to the fire and hold Obama accountable....

Aye, there's the rub...

Your privacy isn't THAT important to ya'all... :D

Not important enough to go up against Obama and condemn him....

Slippery slope indeed... :D

Michale

We're talking the US in the here and now..

If you want to transport to the Stalin era in Russia, then yes.. Different outlooks may apply...

Privacy, is worth taking the risk of dying for if you haven't got any better options, like the youth, energy and just enough coin to get the hell out in steerage to someplace better.

Again, we're not talking about Person A fighting and dying for their privacy. I completely understand how someone would want to do that.. *I* wouldn't because my privacy is really no big deal.. It probably has to do with serving in the military where personal comforts took a back seat to looking out for the team..

No, what we are talking about is Person A advocating that SOMEONE ELSE has to die for Person A's privacy..

THAT is simply selfish and shows an abhorrent lack of civilized priorities...

Some slopes really are slippery.

Yes they are.. And THAT has been my point all along..

Michale

Ask somebody who's lived in a police state. Like my great grandparents did in the old empires.

Lack of privacy chills free expression and free association, because you don't know who you can trust. You fear raising your voice to defend your rights. You fear organizing politically. Which degrades a long chain of fundamental freedoms.

A lowly police officer shouldn't have access to devices that turn your private life public. You may give the officer an automatic pistol, but you shouldn't issue him a hand grenade, on the odd chance he might use it on a terrorist. Proportionality please.

Privacy, is worth taking the risk of dying for if you haven't got any better options, like the youth, energy and just enough coin to get the hell out in steerage to someplace better. Like my immigrant ancestors did. The ones who stayed put .... well that branch of the family is, as best as we can determine, dead sometime shortly after 1941. Not clear if they died fighting, but they sure as hell died.

Some slopes really are slippery.

9/11 was a theoretical, under the bed, could happen stuff of Tom Clancy novels..

Right up until the moment it wasn't...

Michale

Using THIS reasoning, we should outlaw cars because cars kill many more people than guns...

The difference between cars and guns and unbreakable smartphones is that taking away cars and guns have consequences that negate the loss of life experienced by having those things..

Having someone's nudie pics out in the wild??

Not so much...

Privacy is not worth anyone's life..

Having the ability to protect yourself and your family IS worth someone's life...

It's really that simple...

But, like I said, I like your idea of getting a warrant to order the person to unlock their devices... If they refuse, then charge them with the crime that is under investigation. Take their refusal as an admission of guilt...

I like that.. I like that A LOT...

Kudos....

Michale

Using your reasoning, there shouldn't be ANY curtailing of full liberties in the face of ANY threat..

No quarantining of ANY Ebola carriers..

Free to make bomb threats anywhere you want...

Whether you want to admit it or not, the curtailing of freedoms in many instances is the ONLY way a civilized society can survive..

And just what policy am I not honest about? And none of this by omission crap. You made an accusation, back it up.

You refuse to concede the threat of unbreakable encryption..

Since 911 over a quarter of a million Americans have died at the hands a gun. Not theoretical under the bed, "could" happen, is "possible" boogieman but real actual dead people. All from a policy you support.

But it is undeniable that guns also SAVE lives as well...

Comparing guns to smartphones is like comparing apples to alligators...

The problem is "available with warrant" also means available with secret warrant by the NSA and available to hackers.

EVERYTHING is available to hackers...

Nothing is completely secure...

However, most hackers do not operate under the time constraints that LEOs and CT people must operate under...

And beyond your boogieman scenarios, it's of doubtful importance for fighting terrorism.

The problem with that statement is that it is borne from ideology and ignorance with no facts to support it..

For domestic crime fighting, serve a warrant to have the owner unlock the phone and if they don't, charge them with the crime.

OK, I can agree with that..

It's a good starting point because it acknowledges the need...

Michale

Then you deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Heh...

What a crock o shit.. You ain't honest about it. You refuse to even ADMIT it...

And just what policy am I not honest about? And none of this by omission crap. You made an accusation, back it up.

But what I think is the case is ya'all are not quite comprehending the ramifications, the consequences of what you are pushing for..

I understand the ramifications. And I don't mind the argument for or against. What I find odious is this "just save an innocent life" crap. Unless you plan to become a devout Quaker or something similar it's just such a steaming pile of hypocrisy. Since 911 over a quarter of a million Americans have died at the hands a gun. Not theoretical under the bed, "could" happen, is "possible" boogieman but real actual dead people. All from a policy you support.

Totally secure and unbreakable communications is a criminals' or terrorists' wet dream.. Just imagine the consequences if authorities cannot search a criminals' or terrorists' smart phone even WITH a warrant.

Totally secure and unbreakable communications is a few clicks away on the internet. One's that also won't leave a massive trail that can be gotten by a warrant.

Advocating as ya'all are is really no different than a person handing a fully automatic M-16 to a psychopath and saying "I am not responsible for how they use it!!"

Maybe not "fully automatic" but you already advocate for that one. See above.

If things go my way, if smartphones are accessible with warrant, what's the worst, the absolute WORST that could happen??

Someone's nudie pics are exposed for all to see...

The problem is "available with warrant" also means available with secret warrant by the NSA and available to hackers. And beyond your boogieman scenarios, it's of doubtful importance for fighting terrorism. For domestic crime fighting, serve a warrant to have the owner unlock the phone and if they don't, charge them with the crime.

OK, maybe not equally "POSSIBLE", but surely equally plausible...

Michale

If things go my way, if smartphones are accessible with warrant, what's the worst, the absolute WORST that could happen??

Someone's nudie pics are exposed for all to see...

If things go your way, if smartphones are completely unbreakable, what's the worst, the absolute WORST that can happen??

Hundreds, thousands or more innocent people could die...

Given these two equally possible scenarios, I would think the answer to the question is self-evident..

Michale

If I honestly believed that, do you think I would even BE here??

But what I think is the case is ya'all are not quite comprehending the ramifications, the consequences of what you are pushing for..

There is no freedom or liberty in this country that is absolute...

"The right to swing your arms ends where someone else's nose begins"

For every right or liberty you want to express, there is a corresponding responsibility..

I mean, seriously. Take a step back and really look at what you are proposing...

Totally secure and unbreakable communications is a criminals' or terrorists' wet dream.. Just imagine the consequences if authorities cannot search a criminals' or terrorists' smart phone even WITH a warrant.

Advocating as ya'all are is really no different than a person handing a fully automatic M-16 to a psychopath and saying "I am not responsible for how they use it!!"

"With great power, comes great responsibility"
-Spiderman

Michale

I would prefer to hand terrorists a "little" victory and then laugh my ass off when they are perp-walked to jail and then executed rather than hand them a BIG victory and watch them kill thousands of innocent Americans..

I guess I am funny that way....

You, on the other hand, appear to want to keep the little victory out of the hands of terrorists but then hand them a whopping BIG victory on a silver platter...

The only thing you have yet to espouse on is exactly WHY you would want to do that...

Michale

Because I don't view my privacy as "essential" and the safety provided is FAR from "temporary"..

Why would you want to help terrorists and hinder law enforcement??

A few policies you support end up in killing innocents.

The nature of the beast... The alternative is thousands, maybe more innocents will die..

The only difference is I'm honest about mine...

What a crock o shit.. You ain't honest about it. You refuse to even ADMIT it...

Well, since the conversation had moved on to monitoring cell phone networks and judges issuing warrants rather than back to the CHiP officer to whom neither monitored phone networks nor procured warrants, I figured you were talking about Snowden rather than changing the subject..

See what ya get?? :D

Michale

Why would you give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety? If you let terrorists change our society because of their acts, you hand them a little victory.

Because no matter how you sugarcoat it and wrap yourself up in the flag that the Left loves to burn, that is exactly what you are doing.

Check your own sugar coating dude. A few policies you support end up in killing innocents. The only difference is I'm honest about mine...

Jeezus, am I the ONLY one who reads CW's commentaries???

Well, since the conversation had moved on to monitoring cell phone networks and judges issuing warrants rather than back to the CHiP officer to whom neither monitored phone networks nor procured warrants, I figured you were talking about Snowden rather than changing the subject...

And who would that be?

What had apparently happened was that the CHiP officer had trolled her phone for nude or revealing photos, and then when he found some, he forwarded them to his buddies on the force. Then he tried to cover his tracks by deleting the records of the photos having been sent. Thus making the California freeway cops the new poster children for why the public needs to be able to secure their data.

Jeezus, am I the ONLY one who reads CW's commentaries???

Michale

No one is claiming other wise..

But a single judge can (and has) authorize a wire tap on a communication system that is disseminated to the entire population of the United States.

Why are you arguing in favor of terrorists having the privacy to kill innocent Americans??

Because no matter how you sugarcoat it and wrap yourself up in the flag that the Left loves to burn, that is exactly what you are doing.

You are arguing in favor of giving terrorists the tools they need to accomplish their missions and are arguing in favor of limiting American forces in their ability to stop those terrorists from accomplishing their missions...

Michale

Oh, yes they did. One small example linked to in [7] above.

Some lowlife did.

And who would that be?

Third time's the charm??? :D

You are still wrong. A single judge could not authorize a wiretap for the entire population of the united states. Or he could try but it would be illegal and unconstitutional...

Oooooooo I love it when you talk dirty!! :D

Michale

Yes, it does... If a judge signs off on the warrant to do EXACTLY that...

So, you are completely wrong...

I reposted this, because apparently you missed it in your responses.. :D

Not that I expect you will concede that I am right and you are wrong..

But, I figured I would give it another go... :D

Third time's the charm??? :D

Michale

Depends..

If we are talking about a Trayvon Martin or a Michael Brown??

Of course not...

But three hundred million fellow citizens personal privacy is worth an innocent life,

Yea?? Says who??

especially when said government has abused it's powers.

"Government" didn't abuse any powers..

Some lowlife did.

Big difference. BIG... HUGE...

We shall see.

At least you concede I could be right.. :D

Yes, we will indeed see.. It's only going to take one terrorist attack or one child killed that could have been prevented if decryption methods were available to make Google and Apple buckle under the pressure..

The American people will demand it..

Right now, it's only fringe groups that are demanding unbreakable encryption for terrorists...

Michale

Michale

And the other 30,000 people who died by gun per year? Did they not "DESERVE" their lives?

These are not silly theoretical "what if's" but real people who died by the bullet of a gun. Per year.

Like I said, you are on the wrong side of this issue..

NO ONE's personal privacy is worth an innocent person's life..

But three hundred million fellow citizens personal privacy is worth an innocent life, especially when said government has abused it's powers.

And you can bet that your oh so precious Obama administration will not let unbreakable encryption become wide-spread in the US...

We shall see. The NSA revelations has hurt a certain amount of business in the tech sector, the internet is global and money talks...

Michale

Read it???

I LIVED it, sonny jim... :D

I just can't fathom the thought process that says you walking around feeling safe with a gun in your hands is more important than someone else's life..

Oh, that's easy... Because anyone whose life was taken by me with a gun didn't DESERVE to have that life..

Bullshit. Add every other modern industrialized country to your statistics not just a few cherry picked American cities...

Sans one, EVERY mass shooting in the US took place in "gun free zones"...

This is a fact that no liberal OH MY GODS GUNS ARE EVIL hysteria can change...

Like I said, you are on the wrong side of this issue..

NO ONE's personal privacy is worth an innocent person's life..

Michale

In your wet dreams comrade boy...

Not that I expect you will concede that I am right and you are wrong..

Too bad you expect this to only be a one way street. You made an accusation. Lumped me in to an assumed group with no evidence to back it up and got caught.

Because yours is based on ideology and the agenda of the moment and mine is based on common sense..

The common since of killing people with guns?

I simply employed a technique used by the grand poobah hisself.

Effective and it really gets the point across.. As evidenced by you not answering the question... :D

No. You used a tied old logical fallacy that the grand poobah hisself was ridiculing if you actually bothered to read the link you posted. But you don't do that, do you?

Statistically speaking, just the opposite occurs... Where guns are banned, violent crime goes up...

Bullshit. Add every other modern industrialized country to your statistics not just a few cherry picked American cities...

Death ALWAYS matters.. But I just can't fathom the thought process that says your own personal privacy is more important than someone else's life..

I just can't fathom the thought process that says you walking around feeling safe with a gun in your hands is more important than someone else's life..

Yes, you want to feel powerful by keeping guns. Just don't expect that civilized people will understand it..

Everyone is the entire county? Is this warrant secret or do the rest of us get to know about it?

And no, I am not wrong, or at least should not be...

Yes, it does... If a judge signs off on the warrant to do EXACTLY that...

So, you are completely wrong...

I reposted this, because apparently you missed it in your responses.. :D

Not that I expect you will concede that I am right and you are wrong..

But, I figured I would give it another go... :D

Michale

TRANSLATION: Of course I support Obama but like Democrat Candidates out there, I dare not say it..

Gotcha.. :D

Ah, no you have made an interpretation. That exact same section of the Constitution also mentions liberty. I have my own interpretation of that. Why is your interpretation better than mine?

Because yours is based on ideology and the agenda of the moment and mine is based on common sense..

I don't have a daughter, but evidently a wallop of a logical fallacy in this thread...

I simply employed a technique used by the grand poobah hisself.

Effective and it really gets the point across.. As evidenced by you not answering the question... :D

Your support of gun rights. I mean if banning guns would improve public safety and save "just one life".

Statistically speaking, just the opposite occurs... Where guns are banned, violent crime goes up...

I put it too you again: Does death only matter when it supports your own argument?

Death ALWAYS matters.. But I just can't fathom the thought process that says your own personal privacy is more important than someone else's life..

Like I said.. If your privacy is more important than your life, have at it.. Do a John Paul Jones and have but one life to give for your privacy...

But letting other people die because Joe Lefty wants to keep his nudie pics private???

That's pretty low...

Basically, he is of the "FRAK YOU!!! SHOOT THE BITCH!!!" variety...

Don't get me wrong. Joe Lefty has the absolute right to feel that way...

Just don't expect that civilized people will understand it..

Michale

yes or no...

Bla, bla, bla... You made an accusation and could not back it up and now you are asking for a confession. Nice work comrade...

I have already showed you where. Twice...

But you are too concerned on what the definition of 'is' is..

Ah, no you have made an interpretation. That exact same section of the Constitution also mentions liberty. I have my own interpretation of that. Why is your interpretation better than mine?

Yes, it does... If a judge signs off on the warrant to do EXACTLY that...

So, you are completely wrong...

Everyone is the entire county? Is this warrant secret or do the rest of us get to know about it?

I have already showed you where. Twice...

And both times you failed.

But you are too concerned on what the definition of 'is' is..

So is the Supreme court. Actually I think that is their specific job...

Would you stick to your privacy activism if it meant your daughter would be amongst the dead??

It's a fair question....

I don't have a daughter, but evidently a wallop of a logical fallacy in this thread...

But you can't answer it because it totally decimates your argument...

No, I can't answer it as I don't have a daughter.

But you do NOT have the right to impose that death on anyone else..

What part of that do you not understand???

Your support of gun rights. I mean if banning guns would improve public safety and save "just one life".

I put it too you again: Does death only matter when it supports your own argument?

Nothing so dramatic..

Simply go on record.

Do you support Obama's appointments when the Senate was still in session??

yes or no...

It's a simple question..

Again neither "public" nor "safety" appear in that quote. You are making an interpretation.

So now we're back to discussing what the definition of 'is' is..

Oh... joy....

How close to a totalitarian state are you willing to go before you feel safe?

I have already answered that.. You have yet to answer how many innocents have to die to protect your privacy??

And yet the 4th amendment doesn't allow the authorities/government to listen in on everyone's cell phone just in case someone is thinking of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater so that person can be stopped before he can complete the act.

Yes, it does... If a judge signs off on the warrant to do EXACTLY that...

So, you are completely wrong...

No, it is not. Please show me in the constitution where it says anything like that. Politicians enact polices and people don't complain or vote for the other guy in the next election but public safety above everything else is not some magic given.

I have already showed you where. Twice...

But you are too concerned on what the definition of 'is' is..

Does death only matter when it supports your own argument?

To put the privacy question another way ala'

So Is Torturing A Daughter OK?
Posted: 12/31/1969 7:00 pm EST Updated: 05/25/2011 11:55 am EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/so-is-torturing-a-daughte_b_29538.html

Would you stick to your privacy activism if it meant your daughter would be amongst the dead??

It's a fair question....

But you can't answer it because it totally decimates your argument...

If you want to go out and fight and die for your privacy, you have that right..

But you do NOT have the right to impose that death on anyone else..

What part of that do you not understand???

Michale

My, how totalitarian state of you. Eh, comrade...

Do I get to sign a confession next?

Take your pick...

Again neither "public" nor "safety" appear in that quote. You are making an interpretation.

How many people are you willing to let die just so you can have your privacy of things that no one cares about???

How close to a totalitarian state are you willing to go before you feel safe?

But that freedom is not absolute... The First Amendment doesn't give one the right to falsely yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

And yet the 4th amendment doesn't allow the authorities/government to listen in on everyone's cell phone just in case someone is thinking of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater so that person can be stopped before he can complete the act. And it shouldn't allow the police to confiscate every phone in the theater after the fact just in case their might be some evidence on one.

Because Public Safety trumps every freedom that the US Constitution gives us.

This is fact..

No, it is not. Please show me in the constitution where it says anything like that. Politicians enact polices and people don't complain or vote for the other guy in the next election but public safety above everything else is not some magic given.

Is your personal privacy worth the lives of hundreds, thousands, millions or even ONE innocent life???

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that we are not talking about a single person but 300,000,000+ of your fellow citizens?

Let's cut thru all the felgercarp and let me lay out exactly what ya'all are saying...

Cue ridiculous and unrealistic Appeal to emotion (that's a logical fallacy you know...)

As it has nothing to do with reality, I must be watching TV, therefore I would change the channel...

Someone has to die because personal privacy is more important than innocent lives...

So much for Liberal compassion, eh?? :^/

Not the greatest screen writing, I would keep your day job.

But you DO NOT have the right to impose death on innocent people to protect your privacy...

It's a point I am gabberflasted I have to explain...

Oh, the hysteria! Do you have the right to impose death on innocent people? Because every single modern industrialized country that has banned or enacted extreme gun control has a murder and suicide rate at least an order of magnitude lower than ours. Your commitment to gun rights is "advocating KILLING INNOCENT AMERICANS...(or, more accurately, allow to be killed).

Does death only matter when it supports your own argument?

Introducing the USS Barack Obama
http://satireworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Obama-USS-Barack-Obama.jpg

Now THAT's funny!!! :D

Michale

Introducing the USS Barack Obama
http://satireworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Obama-USS-Barack-Obama.jpg

Now THAT's funny!!! :D

Michale

You are absolutely correct. The Bill Of Rights and the US Constitution are worth fighting and dying for... Every soldier, sailor, marine and airman made the choice to go and fight and die for their country and the BOR and the USC...

But ya'all are not going out there and fighting and dying for your right to privacy...

Ya'all are advocating KILLING INNOCENT AMERICANS to protect your right to privacy...

If ya'all want to fight and die for your privacy, that is all well and good. Knock yerselves out.. Have a ball...

But ya'all are not willing to fight and die for your privacy..

Ya'all are willing TO KILL (or, more accurately, allow to be killed) innocent people for your privacy..

In short, you have the right to fight and die for your privacy...

But you DO NOT have the right to impose death on innocent people to protect your privacy...

It's a point I am gabberflasted I have to explain...

Michale

You are in a dark room, tied to a chair. In front of you is a table with your smartphone on it. Across the table from you is a sweet innocent little girl also tied to a chair.. Standing above this sweet innocent girl is the most savage and soul-less assassin that has ever existed...

The assassin has a gun to the little girls head and tells you, "Unlock your phone or I shoot the girl.."

Your response??

"Frak you!!! Shoot the bitch!! My privacy is more important!!"

With the stance ya'all are taking, THAT is exactly what ya'all are saying... When you cut thru all the koom-bye-ya BS and all the holier-than-thou prostrations, THAT is exactly what ya'all are saying...

"Frak you!!! Shoot the bitch!! My privacy is more important!!"

Someone has to die because personal privacy is more important than innocent lives...

So much for Liberal compassion, eh?? :^/

Michale

"If the president does it, it's not illegal"
-Richard Nixon

It's strange to see support for that concept here in Weigantia...

:D

Michale

Oh bullshit..

They were completely unconstitutional...

But it's interesting that you use this argument..

Using your own argument, you completely agree that ALL of Bush's actions were completely legal, that torture was perfectly within the purview of the authorizations of Congress...

Right up to the time that the SCOTUS says those actions were not legal.

If you concede that, then I will concede that Obama's actions were not unconstitutional...

Balls in your court.. :D

Michale

Article 2, Section 2, Subsection B
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Ya'all supported Obama when he violated the US Constitution here...

Do I even have to point to Obama's expansion of the NSA Domestic Surveillance programs???

No one in the rank and file Weigantians says BOO to Obama about that....

How come??

Like I said.. Ya'all only like to clothe yerselves in the livery of the US CONSTITUTION when it suits the agenda...

When the Constitution becomes inconvenient?? It doesn't exist...

Michale

all your comments can refuted with one simple fact..

The first amendment of the US Constitution allows for freedom of speech..

But that freedom is not absolute... The First Amendment doesn't give one the right to falsely yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

Why???

Because Public Safety trumps every freedom that the US Constitution gives us.

This is fact..

This privacy issue is simply another manifestation of it..

The first time a child is raped and killed that COULD have been saved if information from the suspects phone could be obtained, the shit is going to hit the fan..

The first time a terrorist attacks is successful that COULD have been prevented if information from the terrorist's phone could have been obtained, the shit is going to hit the fan...

It's sad that those on the Left would rather a child be raped/killed or a terrorist would kill hundreds or thousands than give authorities to tools to do their jobs...

It comes down to one single question that NO ONE has answered...

Is your personal privacy worth the lives of hundreds, thousands, millions or even ONE innocent life???

Mine isn't...

Michale

Really? Then you should have no problem showing me said argument...

You did so, not by commission but by omission..

However, if it was just an oversight, you can correct it now.. :D

Could you point out where "public safety" appears in your quote?

establish Justice

provide for the common defence

Take your pick...

Does it? How much of the constitution are you willing to throw out to insure it?

Only as much as is absolutely necessary..

How many people are you willing to let die just so you can have your privacy of things that no one cares about???

Michale

Can you check the NNL filters??

Michale

Why are you so shocked? You do it all the time, with Democratic organizations...

First, the guy sent it to a number of buddies. Second, in a deposition, he said he learned how to do it down in LA. So, as an investigator, which do you choose, through applying Ockham's Razor:

(1) the guy acted alone, one bad apple, nothing to see here...

(2) there were probably other guys doing this, and it's not just a local problem in one station house.

Which is the logical conclusion?

Michale [3] -

As to which was more important, what do you think the founding fathers would have answered? Freedom from government was pretty important for those guys...

Michale [4] -

I've never held Obama blameless, personally, I am aghast that he's brought more prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act than ALL other presidents COMBINED. Everyone's got issues where Obama let them down, and this is indeed one for me.

TheStig [5] -

Exactly. Does anyone remember PGP? ("Pretty Good Privacy")

The market will provide.

Michale [6] -

You keep quoting that celebrity line of mine, without noticinng that there's a "not only" in the sentence. The following sentence:

The market also exists because citizens have every right to privacy even from the police.

BashiBazouk [7] -

I agree, following the 4th Amendment should be a no brainer.

Oh, you are preaching to the choir, here...

:-)

Michale [8] -

I specifically mentioned celebrities for two reasons: (1) the history and (2) reductio ad absurdum.

(1) The paragraph begins:

Apple and Google are offering a service in the marketplace. That service is privacy.

This is because Apple and Google initiated the news item. They did so immediately after the "cloud" was hacked. So I had to bring it up, or else risk looking like I didn't understand the context.

(2) The "nude celebrity photos" was brought up in context of Apple and Google's new policy, and then immediately dismissed as irrelevant to the argument I was making. You are the only one obsessing over the statement, which weakens and cheapens your own argument.

Michale [9] -

This one's just not worthy of you:

I agree, following the 4th Amendment should be a no brainer.

Care to elaborate??

OK, allow me: The Constitution of the United States of America -- including the Bill of Rights -- is worth fighting and dying for. Many men have given their lives fighting for it, over the centuries, and in fact all public officials from members of the armed forces to politicians indeed swear an oath to uphold it, and protect it, from enemies foreign and domestic, which includes those willing to sacrifice fundamental American freedoms for some imagined safe cocoon to live in.

How's that? Geez, as a military man, I thought you'd already know that one.

Michale [10] -

Ah, but perhaps those laws are unconstitutional. I have personal knowledge of this myself, as browser encryption for export has to be at a certain (crackable) level or lower. It's a crime listed among those of sharing nuclear secrets, in fact. But the fact remains that anyone can get even stronger encryption from sources worldwide -- in fact, Silicon Valley companies have chafed against these restrictions for years as a way the US government cripples their ability to export software.

As for weapons or explosive laws, it is entirely legal to post information about building explosives and weapons online. First Amendment. One of those the US military fights to uphold.

I'm surprised I have to point this stuff out to you, in fact.

BashiBazouk [12] -

Oh, Amen, brother. Exactly what I was thinking. Nice addition, the words of the oath...

Michale [14] -

Really?

The one thing that always... ALWAYS.... trumps Constitutional freedoms is Public Safety..

You really think Benjamin Franklin would agree with that? Do I really need to dig out his "deserve neither" quote?

Here are two images. Study them:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380images%20and%20media/Schenckpamphlet1.jpg

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380images%20and%20media/Schenckpamphlet2.jpg

Can anything said in either one of them be equated to "shouting fire in a theater"?? What, exactly?

These are the documents that got Schenck convicted, in the SCOTUS case that gave birth to the "shouting fire" language, from the court. So, please, tell me what should be considered illegal under the Constitution you swore to protect in either of those images.

I'm having a hard time differentiating between your version of America and the society described in "Nineteen Eighty-Four"... where your TV set was both a receiving AND a broadcasting unit.

I mean, seriously, where would you draw the line? I accept you wouldn't draw it where I would, but it seems the line doesn't even exist, for you.

Michale [16] -

What exact part of the presidential section of the Constitution has been abridged in any way? Please quote chapter and verse.

Michale [18] -

Obama's recess appointments were entirely constitutional, right up to where SCOTUS said they weren't. In a precedent-setting case, so no one before it (including Obama) knew any different. So how is that any more than just your run of the mill separation of powers sqaubble?

And, as I stated in the article, nowhere in the Constitution does it state that you AREN'T entitled to encryption the government can't decrypt. And, as a historical argument, I added in Jefferson's use of encryption. Jefferson, who was an anti-Federalist -- one of those who fought the Federalists to get the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution itself. So, that's my argument, what's yours?

I mean, have you never read any Dan Brown?!?

BashiBazouk [20] -

See my previous Jefferson comment. My argument is that the founding fathers did INDEED know about encryption -- long before computers entered the scene -- and if it was a big deal to them, they would have included it in the Constitution. They didn't. For a damn good reason. Because privacy and freedom were much more important to them.

-CW

Dammit man!!! Don't you realize those dastardly terrorists could take over the entire world with Aunt Matilda's Banana Bread recipe? That banana bread is just that good...

Really? Then you should have no problem showing me said argument...

No where in the US Constitution does it say you are entitled to unbreakable encryption..

Those dastardly founding fathers! How could they not have predicted the computer revolution. Oh, the humanity!!! :D

Seems like public safety is so important, it's mentioned in the very first part, the preamble, of the US CONSTITUTION...

Could you point out where "public safety" appears in your quote?

Public safety trumps it all...

Does it? How much of the constitution are you willing to throw out to insure it?

It's mind-boggling...

Michale

You supported Obama's recess appointments which violates Article 2 Section II of the US Constitution.

The extent to you wish to ignore the constitution for purely theoretical safety...

No where in the US Constitution does it say you are entitled to unbreakable encryption..

Not... One.... Single.... Place...

Neither is the pursuit of public safety...

Really??

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Seems like public safety is so important, it's mentioned in the very first part, the preamble, of the US CONSTITUTION...

Yer on the losing end of this argument...

You could no more logically argue for unbreakable encryption than you could argue the logic of being allowed to falsely scream "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater..

Public safety trumps it all...

Michale

That is not an argument. So I repeat: And just which of my arguments do not support the constitution?

Privacy is not a Constitutionally protected absolute..

Neither is the pursuit of public safety...

What part of that do you not understand??

The extent to you wish to ignore the constitution for purely theoretical safety...

Article 2 Section II

But we are not talking about A persons privacy. We are talking about the constitutionally protected privacy of the entire country. I am surprised I have to explain this...

You should be...

Privacy is not a Constitutionally protected absolute..

As with every other Constitutional exception, public safety trumps it..

What part of that do you not understand??

Michale

And just which of my arguments do not support the constitution?

A person's privacy ends where the safety of innocent people begin...

Again, I am surprised I have to explain this...

But we are not talking about A persons privacy. We are talking about the constitutionally protected privacy of the entire country. I am surprised I have to explain this...

Iddn't it funny how ya'all love to wrap yourselves in the Constitution when it suits the agenda, but then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient..

:D

Constitutional freedoms are not absolutes..

If they were, then anyone can yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, just for fun..

The one thing that always... ALWAYS.... trumps Constitutional freedoms is Public Safety..

I am also constrained to point out that "privacy" is not a Constitutional right..

A person's privacy ends where the safety of innocent people begin...

Again, I am surprised I have to explain this...

Doubtful but not impossible. But do you have proof beyond pure theoretics that phone snooping would have actually stopped 911?

The simple fact that it COULD happen is sufficient..

Surely you are not advocating that we wait until thousands of people are killed before we consider the possibility???

Michale

Doubtful but not impossible. But do you have proof beyond pure theoretics that phone snooping would have actually stopped 911?

Care to elaborate??

So you are for banning all firearms? That would save not just one but countless lives, and all you have to do is ignore a constitutional amendment...

Or how about my aforementioned limit all cars to 35MPH. That would save just a many if not more lives.

That is why your "save one life" argument is so odious. It seems to only apply to your argument and not others...

Plus weren't you allegedly in the military? Did you not take an oath that went:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

Just empty words, eh?

Michale

Using this reasoning, we shouldn't have any weapons or explosive or hacking laws..

Because there is always some talented people out there who can accomplish just about anything..

Just because someone CAN do it doesn't mean we should allow it...

"Just because we CAN do a thing doesn't necessarily follow that we MUST do that thing."
-Federation President, STAR TREK The Undiscovered Country

I am also constrained to point out that the US has encryption laws and mandatory decryption laws that forbid unbreakable decryption being owned or utilized by civilians and the general public.

I have some personal experience in this particular area, having been compelled by the courts to decrypt data in a civil lawsuit..

Frakin' California courts!! :^/

Michale

The exact number is irrelevant...

Whether it's one or 1 million..

"How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?"
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK INSURRECTION

I agree, following the 4th Amendment should be a no brainer.

yes, because that's more important than a person's life...

Again, the logic of the thought process escapes me..

Care to elaborate??

If you look at timing and development cycles of operating systems, this has a hell of a lot more to do with NSA overreach

And yet, Democrats accept it...

Why is that??

Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. Obama has done some to improve the situation but nearly enough.

And ya'all's culpability in it???

Care to comment on that??

Michale

The fact that celebrities are even mentioned weakens and cheapens the argument..

Michale

Someone's personal privacy??

When you say someone, don't you really mean 300,000,000 someones?

Or the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands, possibly MILLIONS of innocent lives??

Hundreds, maybe. Thousands, doubtful. Millions, pure hysteria.

It's a question that SHOULD be a no brainer..

I agree, following the 4th Amendment should be a no brainer.

Booo hooo.. Cry me a river... Poor poor celebrities

If you look at timing and development cycles of operating systems, this has a hell of a lot more to do with NSA overreach and it's effects of selling hardware abroad than celebrity nudie pics.

If law enforcement wants cool tools, maybe it should not abuse them. Here is another example: over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism[eff.org].

Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. Obama has done some to improve the situation but nearly enough.

I see you choose a nitpick rather than address the point..

Hokay.. :D

What's more important.

Someone's personal privacy?

or an innocent person's life??

I honestly do not comprehend the mindset that would prioritize the former over the latter...

As CW noted, it's not just about celebrities, it has never been just about celebrities.

And yet...

The market for such a service now exists not only because celebrities' own nude photos were hacked by lawbreakers.

Strong encryption serves an essential need in the modern world.

It also serves a need in the terrorist world as well..

This is not a Democratic vs Republican argument.

Really??

Then explain the hysterics from the Left under a GOP administration vs the calm acceptance from that exact same Left, under a DEM administration...

Can you do that??

I can...

Party uber alles....

Michale

Someone's personal privacy??

Or the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands, possibly MILLIONS of innocent lives??"

Inserting large numbers around a vague hypothesis doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

"Booo hooo.. Cry me a river... Poor poor celebrities.."

Given that statement, why did you even bother to proceed it with the following quote?

"The market for such a service now exists not only because celebrities' own nude photos were hacked by lawbreakers."

As CW noted, it's not just about celebrities, it has never been just about celebrities.

"If you don't want nude photos out in the open, then don't take nude photos..." What about love letters...or poetry? Maybe you wouldn't want your clumsy efforts out in public. Stop writing them too? How about credit card numbers? Stop using credit cards?

Not one of your better harangues Michael.

Strong encryption serves an essential need in the modern world. If Apple and Google don't provide it, third party vendors will. It's just ones and zeros cloaking other ones and zeros. The means are public and talented amateur coders can implement them. This is not a Democratic vs Republican argument. It's a technology marches on argument, as viewed through a Constitution that hardly marches at all.

Michale

And what's more important??

Someone's personal privacy??

Or the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands, possibly MILLIONS of innocent lives??

It's a question that SHOULD be a no brainer..

The market for such a service now exists not only because celebrities' own nude photos were hacked by lawbreakers.

Booo hooo.. Cry me a river... Poor poor celebrities.. They are just pissed because their naked photos got hacked and distributed before THEY could have those photos leaked to boost their own egos...

Here's a thought.. If you don't want nude photos out in the open, then don't take nude photos...

Again... NO BRAINER.....

Michale

Violent creepy voyeurs with badges and guns - what could go wrong? Beating and humiliating women for sport.

Oh wait.. We don't have to imagine.. It was just done...

So.... If I find a heinous and disgusting act committed by a single Democrat, that would be an indictment of the entire Democrat Party...

Right???

Michale