Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Why is it that you can't debate the point at hand, but repeatedly pull up these weak strawmen?
"weak" according to you? No that's "weak"!
Oh, BTW: I'm not "debating" .... you are! Enjoy yourself.
I'm just stating the obvious facts. You fools who proclaim "Government is Bad" sop on it more than anyone else. Is that because you don't want anyone to know? Or does it make you feel better to pretend you oppose "government"!
No, a strawman, by its very nature, is considered weak because it is a logical fallacy. One of the most common ones.
Quote:
Oh, BTW: I'm not "debating" .... you are! Enjoy yourself.
Of course not, that's my point. You keep debating things I've never even said instead of addressing what I've said nor answering any direct questions. I notice you doing this with the other poster as well.
Quote:
I'm just stating the obvious facts.
No, they aren't obvious facts. Attempting to apply my position on the constitutional right to privacy to security on an air travel, which is not a constitutional right, is not an "obvious fact."
Quote:
Is that because you don't want anyone to know? Or does it make you feel better to pretend you oppose "government"!
Again, strawman. I'm not anti-government in the least. I just recognize the value of at least some of the ideals put into our government's defining document. Specifically in this case, protecting the citizens from government intrusion.
On top of that, I've pointed out to you why I oppose it: our constitution is designed in a way such that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their ... effects," and that the action would make us less safe. Creating a false dichotomy, especially after I've explicitly described my issues with it that are far outside of this dichotomy, makes it appear like you are avoiding the debate. I can only assume why you would want to avoid the debate, which is why I asked. Of course, you avoided that question as well.
Ok, here's what I don't get. I thought Apple's encryption process was supposed to be 100% hack-proof, meaning they couldn't decipher it even if they wanted to. Now it seems they CAN decipher it if they work on it. Well gee, if Apple can decipher it, so can hackers and foreign governments acting on their own. So the argument that Apple shouldn't do this because it will open a backdoor for hackers is bullshit. Either a backdoor is possible or it isn't. If I bought an I-phone running iOS-8 because it was marketed as being 100% hack-proof, I would want my money back.
No, a strawman, by its very nature, is considered weak because it is a logical fallacy. One of the most common ones.
Of course not, that's my point. You keep debating things I've never even said instead of addressing what I've said nor answering any direct questions. I notice you doing this with the other poster as well.
No, they aren't obvious facts. Attempting to apply my position on the constitutional right to privacy to security on an air travel, which is not a constitutional right, is not an "obvious fact."
Again, strawman. I'm not anti-government in the least. I just recognize the value of at least some of the ideals put into our government's defining document. Specifically in this case, protecting the citizens from government intrusion.
On top of that, I've pointed out to you why I oppose it: our constitution is designed in a way such that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their ... effects," and that the action would make us less safe. Creating a false dichotomy, especially after I've explicitly described my issues with it that are far outside of this dichotomy, makes it appear like you are avoiding the debate. I can only assume why you would want to avoid the debate, which is why I asked. Of course, you avoided that question as well.
Since you brought up the "Constitution" ....
... our "fore fathers" had you and your ilk in mind when they crafted the 5th Amendment.
You posted: "I just recognize the value of at least some of the ideals put into our government's defining document. Specifically in this case, protecting the citizens from government intrusion."
I'm not sure what "defining document" about which you speak, and what is contained in the "defining document" that is relevant to the "thread topic"!
... our "fore fathers" had you and your ilk in mind when they crafted the 5th Amendment.
You posted: "I just recognize the value of at least some of the ideals put into our government's defining document. Specifically in this case, protecting the citizens from government intrusion."
I'm not sure what "defining document" about which you speak, and what is contained in the "defining document" that is relevant to the "thread topic"!
Really? You need it explicitly laid out to you that the defining document of our country is the COTUS? I can't believe it wasn't painfully obvious from the context, considering I have, repeatedly, referenced the COTUS, even in that post.
Really? You need it explicitly laid out to you that the defining document of our country is the COTUS? I can't believe it wasn't painfully obvious from the context, considering I have, repeatedly, referenced the COTUS, even in that post.
Does "COTUS" mean the "Constitution of the United States"?
Ok, here's what I don't get. I thought Apple's encryption process was supposed to be 100% hack-proof, meaning they couldn't decipher it even if they wanted to. Now it seems they CAN decipher it if they work on it. Well gee, if Apple can decipher it, so can hackers and foreign governments acting on their own. So the argument that Apple shouldn't do this because it will open a backdoor for hackers is bullshit. Either a backdoor is possible or it isn't. If I bought an I-phone running iOS-8 because it was marketed as being 100% hack-proof, I would want my money back.
I missed this. The problem is that there is a self-destruct ability built into the Apple software. If they attempt too many times to "brute force" the password by continually trying new passwords/PINs, it will wipe the phone clean. What the FBI is asking is for apple to create a new firmware of their software that would remove failsafe that would wipe everything if they guessed the wrong password too many times. . .probably also to remove the delay between adding passwords too, so they can simply brute force unlock it. The FBI claims that it can be done in a way that makes it only usable on this phone. Which is true. However, if that firmware falls into the wrong hands, it makes reverse engineering the firmware to make a "generic" version much easier. Many people even argue that once the FBI makes a case for forcing Apple to do this, they will simply ask in the future for a generic version that doesn't require apple making a special one for each phone. Which would make it even riskier.
So, right now, as it is, it is extremely hard for someone to reverse engineer the software to find this particular fail-safe, but if they get their hands on the one that has it changed, it makes it orders of magnitude easier, if still very difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Does "COTUS" mean the "Constitution of the United States"?
I'm surprised that someone who regularly trots out their legal experience doesn't know that COTUS commonly means "Constitution of the United States." It's an extremely common acronym, not only that, but one that could easily be found via a simple google search. I figured I was talking to someone who understands common terminology in law. Bad assumption, apparently.
Keys to buildings get changed regularly. Locks get re-keyed. Combinations and codes get changed as well. Phone numbers are changed. The list is endless.
Your "sky is going to fall" crying falls on deaf ears.
You talk about "strawmen"?
Perhaps he is the one talking about "strawmen"....
I'm surprised that someone who regularly trots out their legal experience doesn't know that COTUS commonly means "Constitution of the United States." It's an extremely common acronym, not only that, but one that could easily be found via a simple google search. I figured I was talking to someone who understands common terminology in law. Bad assumption, apparently.
And I was recognizing that you were just common period.
So where is it in the Constitution of the United States of America ("COTUS" AKA the "defining document") that the issue of Apple being protected from the government intrusion into the phone in which Apple imbedded an alleged "encryption" software covered? Please show your "prowess" as a constitutional scholar! Since we are just "chatting" here!
So where is it in the Constitution of the United States of America ("COTUS" AKA the "defining document") that the issue of Apple being protected from the government intrusion into the phone in which Apple imbedded an alleged "encryption" software covered? Please show your "prowess" as a constitutional scholar! Since we are just "chatting" here!
I already very explicitly called out the 4th amendment and being secure in our effects. But, I also noted earlier that it was less about whether or not the state could convince the courts that it isn't unconstitutional, but describing how I believe it violates the spirit of those protections; I am sure someone with far better knowledge of the law could make a case better than I could that the state has the right to do this. Not to mention, what I stressed as even more important: the fact that it will likely make us all less safe. Please at least try to keep up here.
The "right of privacy" legal history in this country is replete with "public safety" exceptions passed out by the judiciary. The legislative branch does it's own versions, but the real "carving" is done by the Courts.
The legal history is usually somewhere in the not so distance past as technology surges ahead of the last "opinion" and "exception." The mandated provisions by the legislature and the subsequent approval by the judiciary is for the most part the result of broad based resistance to the efforts by law enforcement to overcome the technological advances that have thwarted LE.
This dialogue about the "bad guys" getting access to the information is ludicrous ... "bad guys" are already getting the information! In the instant scenario ... that IS THE ISSUE.
The "bad guys" have it and the "good guys" want it! "Police State"?????
So you are arguing that the "good guys" should be legally allowed to compell the Apple to hack the cell phones of LaVoy Finicum and Ryan Bundy in order to access the damages done to the "public safery" caused by their occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?
And I was recognizing that you were just common period.
So where is it in the Constitution of the United States of America ("COTUS" AKA the "defining document") that the issue of Apple being protected from the government intrusion into the phone in which Apple imbedded an alleged "encryption" software covered? Please show your "prowess" as a constitutional scholar! Since we are just "chatting" here!
I would cite the 13th Amendment for the proposition that the government can't force Apple to open the phone. Look it up, LexusLoser.
