7 ms·

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-apple-133241253.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-appl... > "To think that A

by ajamesm 10y ago

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-apple-133241253.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-appl... > "To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it," Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends." > The Republican presidential front-runner called it a matter of common sense: > I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up. I think security overall — we have to open it up. And we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense. Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense. Our country has so many problems.

ewzimm 10y ago
Not trying to be mean, but are you saying that Trump represents a new and terrifying threat to infosec because he "agrees 100%" with the existing courts and administration?
- burkaman 10y ago
  He doesn't "agree 100%" with the courts. Saying it doesn't make it true. He likely has no idea what the courts think about this issue, and doesn't really care.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    I'm just responding to what was quoted here saying he agrees with the courts. Was there something in this interview or another that contradicts that?
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Trump doesn't generally take concrete positions, so I can't find any other meaningful quote from him on surveillance or encryption or anything like that. If you're just asking in general, he has disagreed with the courts many times, such as on Roe v. Wade or his own lawsuits. This quote in isolation is still not great, what does "I think security overall — we have to open it up" mean? But looking at it in isolation is obviously not very useful. Combine it with his lack of a position on many other important issues, and his cabinet picks so far.
      - ewzimm 10y ago
        He was obviously talking about agreeing with the courts in this case, not every matter, which wouldn't even be a rational statement since courts disagree. He does speak in generalities, but so does every politician. He's often especially vague, for sure. That doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for so many people to project their worst fears onto every generality, to the point of hysteria.
        burkaman 10y ago
        Well, the only really concrete actions he's been able to take so far have been announcing cabinet appointments, and so far they're confirming those hysterical peoples' fears. So maybe they have a point. All politicians speak in vague generalities, but most have a record. When a president has no record and no position, I think it is reasonable to prepare for the worst, just in case.
        makomk 10y ago
        When he appointed someone who was apparently under serious consideration for Clinton's cabinet too, that still confirmed those hysterical people's fears. It's almost like they're not actually falsifiable in any way.
        burkaman 10y ago
        Which pick are you talking about? I couldn't find much with google. But regardless, Clinton isn't the president, so it doesn't really matter who she was considering. Trump is appointing people who don't understand climate change, want to abolish the departments they're in charge of, oppose minimum wage rises, don't understand what Planned Parenthood is for, have no government experience, etc. Obviously lots of people like these things, that's why he's making the appointments, but don't tell me you didn't hear these fears before the election. People were hysterical about these exact possibilities, and now they're happening.
- strathmeyer 10y ago
  No, you were supposed to read the whole thing.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    The government took the position that Apple should unlock the phone. Trump said he agreed. Which part did I miss? I'm honestly curious.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      the "Apple should unlock the phone" part
      - ewzimm 10y ago
        "Apple Inc. has received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute I'm not sure what I'm missing here. The position of the government was pretty clear that "Apple should unlock the phone," until the FBI did it independently. Personally, I agree with Apple's position. Security requires trust, and Apple showed good reason to trust them, enough that I went out and bought an iPhone. But I have no idea how Trump agreeing with the courts and the FBI shows some kind of radical new threat.
      - toss1941 10y ago
        That Apple saga was quite an interesting view into American politics. If you ask me, Trump and a lot of the government is out of touch with Privacy rights. The opposite battle is taking place with free speech in Canada[0], with the government wanting to curtail free speech in the name of preferred pronouns referencing gender. In both cases, the Government wants to harm free speech, but I think many people who are against it in Apple's case would be for it in Canada's. I could be wrong though. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695
        ajamesm 10y ago

by ajamesm 10y ago

ewzimm 10y ago

Not trying to be mean, but are you saying that Trump represents a new and terrifying threat to infosec because he "agrees 100%" with the existing courts and administration?

burkaman 10y ago
He doesn't "agree 100%" with the courts. Saying it doesn't make it true. He likely has no idea what the courts think about this issue, and doesn't really care.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  I'm just responding to what was quoted here saying he agrees with the courts. Was there something in this interview or another that contradicts that?
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Trump doesn't generally take concrete positions, so I can't find any other meaningful quote from him on surveillance or encryption or anything like that. If you're just asking in general, he has disagreed with the courts many times, such as on Roe v. Wade or his own lawsuits. This quote in isolation is still not great, what does "I think security overall — we have to open it up" mean? But looking at it in isolation is obviously not very useful. Combine it with his lack of a position on many other important issues, and his cabinet picks so far.
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      He was obviously talking about agreeing with the courts in this case, not every matter, which wouldn't even be a rational statement since courts disagree. He does speak in generalities, but so does every politician. He's often especially vague, for sure. That doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for so many people to project their worst fears onto every generality, to the point of hysteria.
      - burkaman 10y ago
        Well, the only really concrete actions he's been able to take so far have been announcing cabinet appointments, and so far they're confirming those hysterical peoples' fears. So maybe they have a point. All politicians speak in vague generalities, but most have a record. When a president has no record and no position, I think it is reasonable to prepare for the worst, just in case.
        makomk 10y ago
        When he appointed someone who was apparently under serious consideration for Clinton's cabinet too, that still confirmed those hysterical people's fears. It's almost like they're not actually falsifiable in any way.
        burkaman 10y ago
        Which pick are you talking about? I couldn't find much with google. But regardless, Clinton isn't the president, so it doesn't really matter who she was considering. Trump is appointing people who don't understand climate change, want to abolish the departments they're in charge of, oppose minimum wage rises, don't understand what Planned Parenthood is for, have no government experience, etc. Obviously lots of people like these things, that's why he's making the appointments, but don't tell me you didn't hear these fears before the election. People were hysterical about these exact possibilities, and now they're happening.
strathmeyer 10y ago
No, you were supposed to read the whole thing.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  The government took the position that Apple should unlock the phone. Trump said he agreed. Which part did I miss? I'm honestly curious.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    the "Apple should unlock the phone" part
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      "Apple Inc. has received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute I'm not sure what I'm missing here. The position of the government was pretty clear that "Apple should unlock the phone," until the FBI did it independently. Personally, I agree with Apple's position. Security requires trust, and Apple showed good reason to trust them, enough that I went out and bought an iPhone. But I have no idea how Trump agreeing with the courts and the FBI shows some kind of radical new threat.
    - toss1941 10y ago
      That Apple saga was quite an interesting view into American politics. If you ask me, Trump and a lot of the government is out of touch with Privacy rights. The opposite battle is taking place with free speech in Canada[0], with the government wanting to curtail free speech in the name of preferred pronouns referencing gender. In both cases, the Government wants to harm free speech, but I think many people who are against it in Apple's case would be for it in Canada's. I could be wrong though. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695
      - ajamesm 10y ago