4 ms·

> I can't imagine this is going to win them any friends in government circles but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Quite the opposite. Government

> I can't imagine this is going to win them any friends in government circles but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Quite the opposite. Governments probably already have taps to decrypted traffic. Otherwise how come that would even be legal to run? If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
By the same logic, I’m the taxpayer who paid to help build the highway that the drug kingpin used to get away during a high speed chase. I’m an accomplice now. I’m the scientist who purified the water that the criminal used to get enough strength to run away. I’m an accomplice now.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice? We have recent and specific case law around this. The cherry on top is it was Apple on the other side. No, this is not how being an accomplice works in the U.S. It’s not how it works anywhere with the rule of law.
- varispeed 5y ago
  Would you have a link?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
kergonath 5y ago
> Otherwise how come that would even be legal to run? Why wouldn’t it be? I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. AFAIK, running a VPN platform isn’t illegal. > If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice? I hate this argument. It’s lazy and can be used to accuse anybody in any context, and shut down discussions that we should be having. By that standard we are all accomplices for some crimes.
- willis936 5y ago
  >I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. Even beyond that, personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment. Just because there was some executive actions and illegal laws made does not mean the 4th amendment suddenly disappears. No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications.
  - unknown_error 5y ago
    > personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment Yeaaaaah, let's just pretend Snowden and Manning never happened.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - willis936 5y ago
      I'm doing the opposite. Saying that the fed is actively engaging in illegal search and seizure is not ignoring the whistleblowers that brought the scope of the issue to light, it's acknowledging the issue.
      - unknown_error 5y ago
        The point is that the Constitution is largely meaningless, feel-good fluffery that has no actual bearing on which of our so-called rights are actually available to us. It's an aspirational document in a largely lawless land, more a historical oddity than the supreme anything. If you wait for legislators and law enforcement to fix personal privacy, you've already lost... the US law enforcement culture is actively hostile towards individual rights because it makes their jobs harder. The only real difference to, say, China, is that we like to pretend otherwise. But the reality in the ground is that nobody on the grid has had meaningful privacy for decades now.
        willis936 5y ago

gjsman-1000 5y ago

By the same logic, I’m the taxpayer who paid to help build the highway that the drug kingpin used to get away during a high speed chase. I’m an accomplice now. I’m the scientist who purified the water that the criminal used to get enough strength to run away. I’m an accomplice now.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice? We have recent and specific case law around this. The cherry on top is it was Apple on the other side. No, this is not how being an accomplice works in the U.S. It’s not how it works anywhere with the rule of law.

varispeed 5y ago
Would you have a link?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute

kergonath 5y ago

> Otherwise how come that would even be legal to run? Why wouldn’t it be? I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. AFAIK, running a VPN platform isn’t illegal. > If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice? I hate this argument. It’s lazy and can be used to accuse anybody in any context, and shut down discussions that we should be having. By that standard we are all accomplices for some crimes.

willis936 5y ago
>I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. Even beyond that, personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment. Just because there was some executive actions and illegal laws made does not mean the 4th amendment suddenly disappears. No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications.
- unknown_error 5y ago
  > personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment Yeaaaaah, let's just pretend Snowden and Manning never happened.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - willis936 5y ago
    I'm doing the opposite. Saying that the fed is actively engaging in illegal search and seizure is not ignoring the whistleblowers that brought the scope of the issue to light, it's acknowledging the issue.
    - unknown_error 5y ago
      The point is that the Constitution is largely meaningless, feel-good fluffery that has no actual bearing on which of our so-called rights are actually available to us. It's an aspirational document in a largely lawless land, more a historical oddity than the supreme anything. If you wait for legislators and law enforcement to fix personal privacy, you've already lost... the US law enforcement culture is actively hostile towards individual rights because it makes their jobs harder. The only real difference to, say, China, is that we like to pretend otherwise. But the reality in the ground is that nobody on the grid has had meaningful privacy for decades now.
      - willis936 5y ago