4 ms·

Or, gasp, not every person, even really well informed people, agrees with you. Not everyone sees this as a slippery slope. Not everyone thinks the FBI could lat

Or, gasp, not every person, even really well informed people, agrees with you. Not everyone sees this as a slippery slope. Not everyone thinks the FBI could later argue this is the same thing as built-in backdoors in software. Maybe we don't even think this is an overreaction to terrorism, bit instead a reasonable way to collect leads for any serious crime. Some people may even make the mental analogy of a small code change to any other simple assistance. Or everyone who disagrees with you is dumb or a shill. Sounds like real sound reasoning.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
"Not everyone who disagrees with you is wrong" sounds philosophically deep until you realize that in practice the people most commonly resorting that argument are climate change sceptics and flat earthers. Because if there was a better argument than that to be made then that is the argument they would be making instead of resorting to the thing that can be used to justify anything.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  All I've seen is people asserting there is a slippery slope, or that a dangerous precedent will be set. It's on you, not me, to make a case. And you completely missed the point, which is that it's possible for smart well informed people to disagree with you. Maybe you should come up with a convincing reason I should fear this FBI request instead of jumping straight to "you must be ignorant".
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > It's on you, not me, to make a case. That's just the same thing as before. "I'm right because and therefore I don't have to prove anything" is not a convincing argument. You're the one wanting to require and prohibit things. > And you completely missed the point, which is that it's possible for smart well informed people to disagree with you. That isn't a point, it's an abstract statement that applies equally to anything. Don't tell me how smart you are, convince me why I'm wrong. > Maybe you should come up with a convincing reason I should fear this FBI request instead of jumping straight to "you must be ignorant". Because the precedent is what matters. Nobody objects to the FBI having access to this phone, the objection is to the FBI being able to force someone else to help them do it. What happens when Apple makes an iPhone they themselves can't hack and then the FBI points to this precedent and says "we order you to hack this"? If they're allowed to say no then this case is totally irrelevant to both sides and will only happen once, because from here out that is exactly what would happen. But if the FBI can point to this precedent and nobody will be allowed to refuse then it would be a prohibition on making a secure device. Which is the thing to be feared.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

"Not everyone who disagrees with you is wrong" sounds philosophically deep until you realize that in practice the people most commonly resorting that argument are climate change sceptics and flat earthers. Because if there was a better argument than that to be made then that is the argument they would be making instead of resorting to the thing that can be used to justify anything.

vectorjohn 11y ago
All I've seen is people asserting there is a slippery slope, or that a dangerous precedent will be set. It's on you, not me, to make a case. And you completely missed the point, which is that it's possible for smart well informed people to disagree with you. Maybe you should come up with a convincing reason I should fear this FBI request instead of jumping straight to "you must be ignorant".
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > It's on you, not me, to make a case. That's just the same thing as before. "I'm right because and therefore I don't have to prove anything" is not a convincing argument. You're the one wanting to require and prohibit things. > And you completely missed the point, which is that it's possible for smart well informed people to disagree with you. That isn't a point, it's an abstract statement that applies equally to anything. Don't tell me how smart you are, convince me why I'm wrong. > Maybe you should come up with a convincing reason I should fear this FBI request instead of jumping straight to "you must be ignorant". Because the precedent is what matters. Nobody objects to the FBI having access to this phone, the objection is to the FBI being able to force someone else to help them do it. What happens when Apple makes an iPhone they themselves can't hack and then the FBI points to this precedent and says "we order you to hack this"? If they're allowed to say no then this case is totally irrelevant to both sides and will only happen once, because from here out that is exactly what would happen. But if the FBI can point to this precedent and nobody will be allowed to refuse then it would be a prohibition on making a secure device. Which is the thing to be feared.