4 ms·

The fact of the matter is that U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not; that is a problem. It is a problem because

The fact of the matter is that U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not; that is a problem. It is a problem because the U.S. founders made the U.S. Constitution to tell the Federal Government that the people are free, not the other way around; The U.S. Constitution has a purpose and not a meaning e.g. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution; The fact that a federal government entity, such as the DOJ, wants access to a private 'citizens'' (yes, legally corporations are people) intellectual property is unconstitutional. This, sadly, illustrates the mindset of the Federal Government and the status-quo. What happened to the people being jurisprudence? The Federal Government is unbound and reckless and it needs to be bound; bound by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution that was philosophically created to serve a purpose, and that is Limited Federal Government. . .everyone seems to start in the middle of a problem, but never the beginning. Beginning here being The Federal Government and the problems it has propagated. Maybe then people will realize that its solutions are just problems, solutions that solve problems they created. Now, apropos to the topic. . .yes the founders would be appalled and so should the people. The appeal to the founders argument is an appeal to look back to history and identify with true political values that made this country so great. Else you can just "sit back and listen and they will tell you when you'r wrong. . ."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
studentrob 11y ago
> U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not That's not accurate. The latest poll has more Americans supporting Apple than the DOJ [1] And that's an improvement over the first poll which had 51% supporting the FBI [2] Progress has been made and more can be done. Let's continue educating each other about encryption and inform our representatives how we feel. All is not lost and we can still share facts to support a reasonable course going forward. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-journal-poll/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-s... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...
gamblor956 11y ago
The Founder Fathers would most certainly not be appalled by the DOJ iPhone request. After all, a Congress consisting of many of the actual Founding Fathers passed the Sedition Act (of 1798), which suppressed the right to criticize the government, and the Alien Friends Act, which allowed for the deportation of non-citizens without any due process. Having lived through a weak government (the Articles of Confederation), the Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution as empowering the Federal Government, not restricting it.
- slicktux 11y ago
  Maybe you should read the Sedition act a little more carefully. . .it is applicable to any attempt of sedition when one criticizes the government while abiding by the constitution"to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or persons. . .by the powers invested to they/them [entity] by the U.S. Constitution. . ."
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    Look at the people arrested under the Sedition Act and the purpose with which it was passed. It was passed, and used, by the Federalists to suppress the more outspoken Democratic-Republicans, some of whom were arrested for doing nothing more than criticizing the government.
    - slicktux 11y ago
      It's interesting that you point that out; Since the Sedition Act was passed by a Federalist dominated party it only further supports my premise of the U.S. Constitution having a purpose not a meaning for interpretation, which is what the Federalists were doing. . .they wanted to expand the Federal Government (Nationalize), Central Banking System and relationships with the British Monarchy (empire) for which was the complete antithesis of the purpose for the constitution. We are getting into the follies of going against the constitution *past and present (as Thomas Jefferson always argued); we are digging deep; and that is good. Now, why is the U.S.A a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy? Why is the power to coin money a job exclusive to the Federal Government? (article 1 section 8) (as opposed to the FIAT system of today? I ask you
tyre 11y ago
This paints an unfair portrait of the average American. It isn't that they don't care, they just aren't as technologically savvy as this audience. Take the Edward Snowden leaks. John Oliver did a wonderful segment interviewing people about NSA surveillance.[1] If you ask an average citizen if they are for or against "Section 215" or "X-Keyscore", they'll fall back on vague national security scare quotes. If you ask them if the government should see your dick-pics, then they start to understand what is at stake. In many people's minds, what the FBI is saying makes sense. What's the big deal? They want to access a single iPhone from a terrorist. Teach people that it means their nude photos could be accessed by any law enforcement official and I think you'll find that people really do care. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >It isn't that they don't care They don't care. While Oliver was able to ask questions to revoke a current response, you could ask similar questions that preyed upon the 'anything to catch the bad guy' mentality and you would see people handing over their rights. The core of this is that the people have been conditioned to hand over their rights and have been conditioned to not realize they are even doing such. Oliver exposed the latter, but the former still exists.
jonesb6 11y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of "founders" would happily comply with such a request if it meant earning a dollar.
- wooter 11y ago
  what kind of ridiculous ad-hominem to a random "founder" is this? Do you even know under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment was signed into law?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

studentrob 11y ago

> U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not That's not accurate. The latest poll has more Americans supporting Apple than the DOJ [1] And that's an improvement over the first poll which had 51% supporting the FBI [2] Progress has been made and more can be done. Let's continue educating each other about encryption and inform our representatives how we feel. All is not lost and we can still share facts to support a reasonable course going forward. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-journal-poll/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-s... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...

gamblor956 11y ago

The Founder Fathers would most certainly not be appalled by the DOJ iPhone request. After all, a Congress consisting of many of the actual Founding Fathers passed the Sedition Act (of 1798), which suppressed the right to criticize the government, and the Alien Friends Act, which allowed for the deportation of non-citizens without any due process. Having lived through a weak government (the Articles of Confederation), the Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution as empowering the Federal Government, not restricting it.

slicktux 11y ago
Maybe you should read the Sedition act a little more carefully. . .it is applicable to any attempt of sedition when one criticizes the government while abiding by the constitution"to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or persons. . .by the powers invested to they/them [entity] by the U.S. Constitution. . ."
- Amezarak 11y ago
  Look at the people arrested under the Sedition Act and the purpose with which it was passed. It was passed, and used, by the Federalists to suppress the more outspoken Democratic-Republicans, some of whom were arrested for doing nothing more than criticizing the government.
  - slicktux 11y ago
    It's interesting that you point that out; Since the Sedition Act was passed by a Federalist dominated party it only further supports my premise of the U.S. Constitution having a purpose not a meaning for interpretation, which is what the Federalists were doing. . .they wanted to expand the Federal Government (Nationalize), Central Banking System and relationships with the British Monarchy (empire) for which was the complete antithesis of the purpose for the constitution. We are getting into the follies of going against the constitution *past and present (as Thomas Jefferson always argued); we are digging deep; and that is good. Now, why is the U.S.A a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy? Why is the power to coin money a job exclusive to the Federal Government? (article 1 section 8) (as opposed to the FIAT system of today? I ask you

tyre 11y ago

This paints an unfair portrait of the average American. It isn't that they don't care, they just aren't as technologically savvy as this audience. Take the Edward Snowden leaks. John Oliver did a wonderful segment interviewing people about NSA surveillance.[1] If you ask an average citizen if they are for or against "Section 215" or "X-Keyscore", they'll fall back on vague national security scare quotes. If you ask them if the government should see your dick-pics, then they start to understand what is at stake. In many people's minds, what the FBI is saying makes sense. What's the big deal? They want to access a single iPhone from a terrorist. Teach people that it means their nude photos could be accessed by any law enforcement official and I think you'll find that people really do care. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>It isn't that they don't care They don't care. While Oliver was able to ask questions to revoke a current response, you could ask similar questions that preyed upon the 'anything to catch the bad guy' mentality and you would see people handing over their rights. The core of this is that the people have been conditioned to hand over their rights and have been conditioned to not realize they are even doing such. Oliver exposed the latter, but the former still exists.

jonesb6 11y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of "founders" would happily comply with such a request if it meant earning a dollar.

wooter 11y ago
what kind of ridiculous ad-hominem to a random "founder" is this? Do you even know under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment was signed into law?