7 ms·

I've honestly never met an actual "you don't have to worry if you have nothing to hide" person. Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside? What

I've honestly never met an actual "you don't have to worry if you have nothing to hide" person. Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside? What if you had something on your phone that isn't illegal now, but is tomorrow? (3D printed gun plans, source code that is found to have been published without consent, an ebook on sexual positions that are still illegal depending on which state and county you are standing on??) 15ish years ago, certain states might have pressed charges if you had a dildo in your sock drawer. What is in your sock drawer?

tptacek 11y ago
You didn't just totally miss Rayiner's point, but also wrote an extremely creepy comment that would have been inappropriate for civil conversation even had you been right about what he was saying.
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  Framing mainstream sexuality as "creepy' is outdated, as evidenced by the following: Over three years ago, a newspaper as everyday as USA Today reported "CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Safeway, Target and Walmart are among major national chains that now include vibrators on store shelves" [1]. IOW Saying the world dildo no longer qualifies as creepy. [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/2012-05-29/vibrators-and-sex-toys-sales/55289424/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/20...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    No, that wasn't the creepy bit.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Socks. And potentially incriminating secrets wrapped in metaphorical socks, apparently. Probably one of those socks should contain a big machine bolt with a bunch of heavy hex-nuts screwed onto it, so that anyone who comes around to sniff at my socks can get a proper beating (along with the regular intrinsic olfactory penalty for sniffing my socks). But I feel like you're missing something. The government cops aren't always going to be looking for incriminating evidence or actionable intelligence. They might just be using that as a pretext to look for cash or valuables that they can slip into their own pockets. You kept it a secret, after all, so how would you prove that they stole it? That's just one of the ways in which power corrupts.
vectorjohn 11y ago
The point, which you missed, is that the FBI already can look through your sock drawer with a warrant. And they already can get your private information from a company's server. If you want that not to be the case, it's an entirely different argument.
mc32 11y ago
I think his point is that if you want it to be legal to have a dildo in your sock drawer then change the laws to make it legal rather than relying on "people not finding out". Another implication is why would a court order grant access to a sock drawer but not a phone. What makes one unlike the other, regarding lawful court approved search warrants.
- jsjohnst 11y ago
  Because they are going after the manufacturer of the sock drawer to help them get into your sock drawer.
  - mc32 11y ago
    It's not unheard of for the government to request manufacturers or service providers to aid them in obtaining information about third parties under investigation. Let's say a safe manufacturer, they might ask for blue prints, or a gunseller a list of people who bought a particular firearm from them (if they kept such records, disregard background checks).
rayiner 11y ago
> Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside? Very vanilla and mainstream, religiously and politically. > What if you had something on your phone that isn't illegal now, but is tomorrow? I'd delete it? But I probably wouldn't have it in the first place, for the reason above. > 15ish years ago, certain states might have pressed charges if you had a dildo in your sock drawer. And that would be wrong. But it'd be the law against the dildo in the sock drawer that would be wrong, not the general principle that the government has the right to search your sock drawer so long as it obtains a warrant based on probable cause. That principle has worked pretty damn well for 200+ years and I see no reason to change it now.
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  > But it'd be the law against the dildo in the sock drawer that would be wrong So you'd have yourself and people you care about hang out in prison, cheerfully thinking to yourself, "We're only here because the law is wrong." > worked pretty damn well for 200+ years and I see no reason to change it now. That hasn't been running on its own automatically. It's been a massive bulwark of principled people maintaining it against attacks. And there are too many examples to count of misleading evidence used to mischaracterize, defame or prejudice opinions against individuals. Consider our own government's treatment of blacks up to and including now. The government doesn't always know what is right and needs principled citizens to amend it. Think back to that recent demo of predicting race by zip code. Thank back to predatory loaning practices, the KKK, job interview biases, unequal prison sentencing, racial bias by police, etc. and consider what happens in less-principled countries like Turkey and Germany. If I were of a non-mainstream race, I would want as few people to know as possible and I would want protection from society's baser instincts. Otherwise, it's too easy for people with an axe to grind to abuse their power by sweeping through, say, all phones and singling out by language those that appear to be used by an ethnic or cultural group who may be prejudged to be a threat.
  - refal 11y ago
    I'm basically with you. However, as a German, I find it interesting why you mention Germany as "less-principled". Less-principled than the US? Do you talk about current Germany or about former east Germany or even Nazi Germany? Of course, there are enough problems here as anywhere else regarding privacy, etc. But I have difficulties seeing current Germany as "less-principled" than the US wrt. privacy, human rights etc. Just curious what your impression is based on.
newman314 11y ago
Or a somewhat different example, the Nazi use of census records (seemingly innocuous) to find and track Jews (horrific). http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Politics/dp/1592132596 http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Pol... In fact, I would strongly push for anyone working with "big data" to read up on this. Just because we can, does not mean we should. Data does not have a "use this only this way and only for good" button.
- Crito 11y ago
  Let's remember what this discussion is actually about. The FBI isn't asking Apple to help them make a Jew list. They are asking for access to the telephone of a mass murderer.
  - newman314 11y ago
    They are asking for access to the work phone. The likelihood is high that there is not much of use on the phone. However, as multiple sites have opined, this is about setting precedent and the actual data on the phone is secondary.
    - lern_too_spel 11y ago
      There is no precedent being set here. The government has this ability already. If Apple doesn't comply like Lavabit, the government has the ability to set more onerous terms.
      - newman314 11y ago
        http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-global-privacy-20160219-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-gl... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-mem... Yeah, so....
        11y ago
anon1385 11y ago
>Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside? rayiner is extremely conservative and authoritarian. He is pro-torture. He is against the right to due process. He is for the government having the ability to indefinitely detain you without trial. He is for the government having the ability to execute people without trial. He is for invading other countries for economic reasons.

tptacek 11y ago

You didn't just totally miss Rayiner's point, but also wrote an extremely creepy comment that would have been inappropriate for civil conversation even had you been right about what he was saying.

chillingeffect 11y ago
Framing mainstream sexuality as "creepy' is outdated, as evidenced by the following: Over three years ago, a newspaper as everyday as USA Today reported "CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Safeway, Target and Walmart are among major national chains that now include vibrators on store shelves" [1]. IOW Saying the world dildo no longer qualifies as creepy. [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/2012-05-29/vibrators-and-sex-toys-sales/55289424/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/20...
- tptacek 11y ago
  No, that wasn't the creepy bit.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Socks. And potentially incriminating secrets wrapped in metaphorical socks, apparently. Probably one of those socks should contain a big machine bolt with a bunch of heavy hex-nuts screwed onto it, so that anyone who comes around to sniff at my socks can get a proper beating (along with the regular intrinsic olfactory penalty for sniffing my socks). But I feel like you're missing something. The government cops aren't always going to be looking for incriminating evidence or actionable intelligence. They might just be using that as a pretext to look for cash or valuables that they can slip into their own pockets. You kept it a secret, after all, so how would you prove that they stole it? That's just one of the ways in which power corrupts.

vectorjohn 11y ago

The point, which you missed, is that the FBI already can look through your sock drawer with a warrant. And they already can get your private information from a company's server. If you want that not to be the case, it's an entirely different argument.

mc32 11y ago

I think his point is that if you want it to be legal to have a dildo in your sock drawer then change the laws to make it legal rather than relying on "people not finding out". Another implication is why would a court order grant access to a sock drawer but not a phone. What makes one unlike the other, regarding lawful court approved search warrants.

jsjohnst 11y ago
Because they are going after the manufacturer of the sock drawer to help them get into your sock drawer.
- mc32 11y ago
  It's not unheard of for the government to request manufacturers or service providers to aid them in obtaining information about third parties under investigation. Let's say a safe manufacturer, they might ask for blue prints, or a gunseller a list of people who bought a particular firearm from them (if they kept such records, disregard background checks).

rayiner 11y ago

> Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside? Very vanilla and mainstream, religiously and politically. > What if you had something on your phone that isn't illegal now, but is tomorrow? I'd delete it? But I probably wouldn't have it in the first place, for the reason above. > 15ish years ago, certain states might have pressed charges if you had a dildo in your sock drawer. And that would be wrong. But it'd be the law against the dildo in the sock drawer that would be wrong, not the general principle that the government has the right to search your sock drawer so long as it obtains a warrant based on probable cause. That principle has worked pretty damn well for 200+ years and I see no reason to change it now.

chillingeffect 11y ago
> But it'd be the law against the dildo in the sock drawer that would be wrong So you'd have yourself and people you care about hang out in prison, cheerfully thinking to yourself, "We're only here because the law is wrong." > worked pretty damn well for 200+ years and I see no reason to change it now. That hasn't been running on its own automatically. It's been a massive bulwark of principled people maintaining it against attacks. And there are too many examples to count of misleading evidence used to mischaracterize, defame or prejudice opinions against individuals. Consider our own government's treatment of blacks up to and including now. The government doesn't always know what is right and needs principled citizens to amend it. Think back to that recent demo of predicting race by zip code. Thank back to predatory loaning practices, the KKK, job interview biases, unequal prison sentencing, racial bias by police, etc. and consider what happens in less-principled countries like Turkey and Germany. If I were of a non-mainstream race, I would want as few people to know as possible and I would want protection from society's baser instincts. Otherwise, it's too easy for people with an axe to grind to abuse their power by sweeping through, say, all phones and singling out by language those that appear to be used by an ethnic or cultural group who may be prejudged to be a threat.
- refal 11y ago
  I'm basically with you. However, as a German, I find it interesting why you mention Germany as "less-principled". Less-principled than the US? Do you talk about current Germany or about former east Germany or even Nazi Germany? Of course, there are enough problems here as anywhere else regarding privacy, etc. But I have difficulties seeing current Germany as "less-principled" than the US wrt. privacy, human rights etc. Just curious what your impression is based on.

newman314 11y ago

Or a somewhat different example, the Nazi use of census records (seemingly innocuous) to find and track Jews (horrific). http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Politics/dp/1592132596 http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Pol... In fact, I would strongly push for anyone working with "big data" to read up on this. Just because we can, does not mean we should. Data does not have a "use this only this way and only for good" button.

Crito 11y ago
Let's remember what this discussion is actually about. The FBI isn't asking Apple to help them make a Jew list. They are asking for access to the telephone of a mass murderer.
- newman314 11y ago
  They are asking for access to the work phone. The likelihood is high that there is not much of use on the phone. However, as multiple sites have opined, this is about setting precedent and the actual data on the phone is secondary.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    There is no precedent being set here. The government has this ability already. If Apple doesn't comply like Lavabit, the government has the ability to set more onerous terms.
    - newman314 11y ago
      http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-global-privacy-20160219-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-gl... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-mem... Yeah, so....
      - 11y ago

anon1385 11y ago

>Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside? rayiner is extremely conservative and authoritarian. He is pro-torture. He is against the right to due process. He is for the government having the ability to indefinitely detain you without trial. He is for the government having the ability to execute people without trial. He is for invading other countries for economic reasons.