5 ms·

Do you honestly think Rosa Parks risking her life and limb to protest racial injustice is even remotely equivalent to an engineer at Apple refusing to comply wi

Do you honestly think Rosa Parks risking her life and limb to protest racial injustice is even remotely equivalent to an engineer at Apple refusing to comply with a court order to look at the information on the iPhone's of the two nut jobs that killed: Shannon Johnson Bennetta Bet-Badal Aurora Godoy Isaac Amanios Larry Kaufman Harry Bowman Yvette Velasco Sierra Clayborn Robert Adams Nicholas Thalasinos Tin Nguyen Juan Espinoza Damian Meins Michael Wetzel ? Listen, I understand you feel passionate about securing your privacy, but it would likely help your case to keep things a little more in perspective

csallen 11y ago
The parent is making an analogy, the point of which is to compare one singular aspect of situation A to one singular aspect of situation B. So no, it's safe to say that the parent isn't claiming that situation A and situation B are equivalent.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  I asked for "even remotely equivalent" based on: This is an opportunity for Parks v.2016 - if you're asked by Apple to do anything to comply with the court order, don't do it. Seems fair?
  - csallen 11y ago
    Hmm, I think if you take that sentence in context, it's clear he's saying it's Parks v.2016 only in the sense of committing worthwhile civil disobedience -- an opportunity to do some good while risking legal consequences. He wasn't saying that Apple's fight is as noble and necessary as Parks' was, nor was he saying that the government's goal of stopping terrorist attacks is as sinister as the goal of enforcing segregation. I think it was unfair for you to interpret his argument that way.
    - einarvollset 11y ago
      No I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree here: if he was not trying to draw an equivalence between segregation and this case, and instead was merely trying to say that civil disobedience would be appropriate, then he should not have mentioned Rosa Parks. Doing so clearly attempts to drawn an equivalence. If he didn't mean that, then why not draw it to eg the Oregon occupiers?
      - csallen 11y ago
        Why not draw a comparison to the Oregon occupiers? Because, as I said above, his point is about "committing worthwhile civil disobedience -- an opportunity to do some good while risking legal consequences". Everybody agrees that Rosa Parks' deed was good, thus it serves as a good example.
zephyz 11y ago
Your behaviour exactly illustrates the equivalent between the two: arbitrary social pressure against what is, I would argue, better for humanity. Thankfully, we have strong smart influencal people taking a stand for us,humans. And we should appreciate that. And I don't think I'm risking too much by saying that dodging an authoritarian surveillance regime is better for humanity. Finally, I understand that people dying is scary, but let me put things in perspective for you: Should the death of a finite number of people put at risk 7 billions lives and the lives of their children for centuries? Edit: few -> finite
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite. If the FBI didn't do it this way, what exactly should they do? Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"? Today your phone content has that kind of key, what's to stop that being used elsewhere?
  - michaelmrose 11y ago
    You realize that this is exactly how it works with locked crypto systems normally right? If the system is designed better there isn't even an apple to cry to to demand it be unlocked because they don't possess the key nor the means to get at it. This is not nearly so huge an impediment as you might imagine. A computer that you couldn't unlock for love nor money when its off and cold could be attacked and accessed beforehand and most people leave a multitude of electronic evidence behind outside of their own machine.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    >Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". The frustrating bit for me is that many people believe that a courts power is unlimited and that simply by virtu of the FBI obtaining a rubber stamp from a court it makes their demand A OK... makes their demand ethical, moral, or constitutional. The frustrating bit for me is that many people on the side of the FBI believe because people died in a terrorist act that justifies any loss of privacy and liberty for anyone now and in the future. >and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite Actually it is not. Almost all Authoritarian Surveillance Regime are perfectly legal, and have the full blessing of the Law and Courts in their jurisdictions. In fact by having a courts approval, and the authorization under law that makes it a surveillance STATE the key requirement of a surveillance state is said surveillance happens legally. >Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"? Yes. There seems to be an idea that the FBI is entitled to, has a right to all information at all times provided it ordered by a court somewhere. This flies in the face of historical fact. Never in human history has law enforcement had more information about its citizen, the needle is HEAVILY pointed in favor of the government, Encryption gives the citizens some limited authority to take that back. This idea that the government is entitled to know everything about you under court order is naive and not based in reality or history.
michaelmrose 11y ago
A seat on the bus wasn't on its face a huge thing either its the symbolic meaning attached before and during that made the act relevant.

csallen 11y ago

The parent is making an analogy, the point of which is to compare one singular aspect of situation A to one singular aspect of situation B. So no, it's safe to say that the parent isn't claiming that situation A and situation B are equivalent.

einarvollset 11y ago
I asked for "even remotely equivalent" based on: This is an opportunity for Parks v.2016 - if you're asked by Apple to do anything to comply with the court order, don't do it. Seems fair?
- csallen 11y ago
  Hmm, I think if you take that sentence in context, it's clear he's saying it's Parks v.2016 only in the sense of committing worthwhile civil disobedience -- an opportunity to do some good while risking legal consequences. He wasn't saying that Apple's fight is as noble and necessary as Parks' was, nor was he saying that the government's goal of stopping terrorist attacks is as sinister as the goal of enforcing segregation. I think it was unfair for you to interpret his argument that way.
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    No I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree here: if he was not trying to draw an equivalence between segregation and this case, and instead was merely trying to say that civil disobedience would be appropriate, then he should not have mentioned Rosa Parks. Doing so clearly attempts to drawn an equivalence. If he didn't mean that, then why not draw it to eg the Oregon occupiers?
    - csallen 11y ago
      Why not draw a comparison to the Oregon occupiers? Because, as I said above, his point is about "committing worthwhile civil disobedience -- an opportunity to do some good while risking legal consequences". Everybody agrees that Rosa Parks' deed was good, thus it serves as a good example.

zephyz 11y ago

Your behaviour exactly illustrates the equivalent between the two: arbitrary social pressure against what is, I would argue, better for humanity. Thankfully, we have strong smart influencal people taking a stand for us,humans. And we should appreciate that. And I don't think I'm risking too much by saying that dodging an authoritarian surveillance regime is better for humanity. Finally, I understand that people dying is scary, but let me put things in perspective for you: Should the death of a finite number of people put at risk 7 billions lives and the lives of their children for centuries? Edit: few -> finite

einarvollset 11y ago
Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite. If the FBI didn't do it this way, what exactly should they do? Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"? Today your phone content has that kind of key, what's to stop that being used elsewhere?
- michaelmrose 11y ago
  You realize that this is exactly how it works with locked crypto systems normally right? If the system is designed better there isn't even an apple to cry to to demand it be unlocked because they don't possess the key nor the means to get at it. This is not nearly so huge an impediment as you might imagine. A computer that you couldn't unlock for love nor money when its off and cold could be attacked and accessed beforehand and most people leave a multitude of electronic evidence behind outside of their own machine.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". The frustrating bit for me is that many people believe that a courts power is unlimited and that simply by virtu of the FBI obtaining a rubber stamp from a court it makes their demand A OK... makes their demand ethical, moral, or constitutional. The frustrating bit for me is that many people on the side of the FBI believe because people died in a terrorist act that justifies any loss of privacy and liberty for anyone now and in the future. >and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite Actually it is not. Almost all Authoritarian Surveillance Regime are perfectly legal, and have the full blessing of the Law and Courts in their jurisdictions. In fact by having a courts approval, and the authorization under law that makes it a surveillance STATE the key requirement of a surveillance state is said surveillance happens legally. >Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"? Yes. There seems to be an idea that the FBI is entitled to, has a right to all information at all times provided it ordered by a court somewhere. This flies in the face of historical fact. Never in human history has law enforcement had more information about its citizen, the needle is HEAVILY pointed in favor of the government, Encryption gives the citizens some limited authority to take that back. This idea that the government is entitled to know everything about you under court order is naive and not based in reality or history.

michaelmrose 11y ago

A seat on the bus wasn't on its face a huge thing either its the symbolic meaning attached before and during that made the act relevant.