4 ms·

You don't get it, Comey. The problem isn't that you want this information. Obviously you want this information as an investigator of a crime. The problem is, we

You don't get it, Comey. The problem isn't that you want this information. Obviously you want this information as an investigator of a crime. The problem is, we can't fucking trust you or anyone enough to cross that bridge, because we know if it's there, you're just going to want more. You and every law enforcement agent in the United States has lost our trust. Call it overreach, or overzealous prosecution, high incarceration rates, crooked judges sending kids to jail for kickbacks... fuck if I list any more, I'm going to want to drink some more. I'd love to live in a world where I trusted a government, which is supposed to be a composition of its people, more than a profit-motivated, self-interested business, but in some weird turn of events, something vastly different has festered in the last 15 years. You blew it, you asshole, you and every other cop.

FreedomToCreate 11y ago
A few things. If you want to make your argument legit, refrain from calling the other person names. Second, besides drinking and making yourself essentially useless, what are you doing to improve this situation. One person may not be enough to make a difference but its better than zero. America is entirely being driven by fear and anger. The current presidential race is a perfect reflection of the hate, anger, and fear that Americans believe exists. The system is a reflection of what the "good" people allow to happen. The FBI has a job, and Apple has a commitment to its customers. Technology is going to get more advanced, does that mean that we should let it be a tool to obstruct justice. You may not trust the people tasked with the investigation, but people should also look at the fact that the encryption here is obstructing justice. Tomorrow if a criminal kidnaps a bus of school children and the police are able to get a hold of a locked phone that holds their location, would you be as opposed to the current situation? The creation of a method to disable the phones encryption is a slippery road, but the option of not aiding the FBI is also a slippery road. This is a organization created to protect the people. We need to have a open discourse on how the information can be taken off this phone while minimizing the loss of public security and privacy . This is not a black and white issue like many people are treating it. And just to make it clear, I do agree that the government has done extremely questionable things as well as committed offenses against the publics privacy. We need to fix the issue of distrust, because a lack of trust in our system is equal to cancer within a body.
- komaromy 11y ago
  > the encryption here is obstructing justice No, it isn't. The phone they're trying to break into was the shooter's work phone, provided by his employer. He physically destroyed his personal phone before the acts in question. The idea that he kept relevant information on his work phone, which he left intact, is absurd.
  - FreedomToCreate 11y ago
    There is a probability that it may not contain anything, but this fact doesn't disprove the notion that encryption can be used to obstruct justice in future cases. (What the probability is though is hard for me to predict as I don't have enough information, but assuming he didn't have any slip ups on his work phone is a bad assumption. If there is a 1 percent chance that future attacks of similar scope could be prevented by knowledge gathered about this case, is it not our obligation to find out? Its a complex issue that the courts and media will play out over the next few months)
  - joshka 11y ago
    I'm against the FBI's actions here, but your argument against it doesn't make sense. Did the shooter take the phone with him when meeting with accomplices? If so, perhaps there's GPS info on the phone. What are the gaps in standard behavior (i.e. phone turned off...). Are these times where the FBI should dig deeper to discover the actions of the shooter? The idea that bulk collection of metadata is objectionable is something we're seeing in civilized technical circles. Individual collection of the same is even worse.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  Counterpoint: Just going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure James Comey isn't leafing through Hacker News reading our arguments. If he'd like to have a civil discussion, I'd be more than happy to bring the civility. Second, our system is essentially set up to make me powerless. It's actually engineered that way. I do what I can to educate people around me, but when it comes to voting or having any control over who's in office or who officiates our most important government positions, the ball's not just not in our court, it's on another planet. Technology, as you said, will continue to get much more advanced. I reckon at some point, literally every moment of our lives will be perfectly catalogued, from birth to death. This is why what Mr. Comey wants scares me so much, because you can practically hear him salivating in that letter. We have guarantees built into our constitutional freedoms, and one of the most important guarantees is that the government can't compel us to do things. Sure, there are laws to maintain the peace and common order, but you don't have to house or attend to military in your home, you don't have to testify against yourself, you're not compelled by police to follow their wishes until you're under arrest (which they ostensibly can't do without probable cause), and you don't have to aide in an investigation if you're not involved. These are vital because the moment we're legally compelled to aide investigators, all bets are off. We are no longer able to even protect ourselves against undue search and seizure.
ilostmykeys 11y ago
dude, you're an amazing person for saying this. Thank you.

FreedomToCreate 11y ago

A few things. If you want to make your argument legit, refrain from calling the other person names. Second, besides drinking and making yourself essentially useless, what are you doing to improve this situation. One person may not be enough to make a difference but its better than zero. America is entirely being driven by fear and anger. The current presidential race is a perfect reflection of the hate, anger, and fear that Americans believe exists. The system is a reflection of what the "good" people allow to happen. The FBI has a job, and Apple has a commitment to its customers. Technology is going to get more advanced, does that mean that we should let it be a tool to obstruct justice. You may not trust the people tasked with the investigation, but people should also look at the fact that the encryption here is obstructing justice. Tomorrow if a criminal kidnaps a bus of school children and the police are able to get a hold of a locked phone that holds their location, would you be as opposed to the current situation? The creation of a method to disable the phones encryption is a slippery road, but the option of not aiding the FBI is also a slippery road. This is a organization created to protect the people. We need to have a open discourse on how the information can be taken off this phone while minimizing the loss of public security and privacy . This is not a black and white issue like many people are treating it. And just to make it clear, I do agree that the government has done extremely questionable things as well as committed offenses against the publics privacy. We need to fix the issue of distrust, because a lack of trust in our system is equal to cancer within a body.

komaromy 11y ago
> the encryption here is obstructing justice No, it isn't. The phone they're trying to break into was the shooter's work phone, provided by his employer. He physically destroyed his personal phone before the acts in question. The idea that he kept relevant information on his work phone, which he left intact, is absurd.
- FreedomToCreate 11y ago
  There is a probability that it may not contain anything, but this fact doesn't disprove the notion that encryption can be used to obstruct justice in future cases. (What the probability is though is hard for me to predict as I don't have enough information, but assuming he didn't have any slip ups on his work phone is a bad assumption. If there is a 1 percent chance that future attacks of similar scope could be prevented by knowledge gathered about this case, is it not our obligation to find out? Its a complex issue that the courts and media will play out over the next few months)
- joshka 11y ago
  I'm against the FBI's actions here, but your argument against it doesn't make sense. Did the shooter take the phone with him when meeting with accomplices? If so, perhaps there's GPS info on the phone. What are the gaps in standard behavior (i.e. phone turned off...). Are these times where the FBI should dig deeper to discover the actions of the shooter? The idea that bulk collection of metadata is objectionable is something we're seeing in civilized technical circles. Individual collection of the same is even worse.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dclowd9901 11y ago
Counterpoint: Just going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure James Comey isn't leafing through Hacker News reading our arguments. If he'd like to have a civil discussion, I'd be more than happy to bring the civility. Second, our system is essentially set up to make me powerless. It's actually engineered that way. I do what I can to educate people around me, but when it comes to voting or having any control over who's in office or who officiates our most important government positions, the ball's not just not in our court, it's on another planet. Technology, as you said, will continue to get much more advanced. I reckon at some point, literally every moment of our lives will be perfectly catalogued, from birth to death. This is why what Mr. Comey wants scares me so much, because you can practically hear him salivating in that letter. We have guarantees built into our constitutional freedoms, and one of the most important guarantees is that the government can't compel us to do things. Sure, there are laws to maintain the peace and common order, but you don't have to house or attend to military in your home, you don't have to testify against yourself, you're not compelled by police to follow their wishes until you're under arrest (which they ostensibly can't do without probable cause), and you don't have to aide in an investigation if you're not involved. These are vital because the moment we're legally compelled to aide investigators, all bets are off. We are no longer able to even protect ourselves against undue search and seizure.

ilostmykeys 11y ago

dude, you're an amazing person for saying this. Thank you.