Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandeep who wrote (188941)	3/19/2016 2:12:21 AM
From: HerbVic	10 Recommendations Recommended By Bill from Wisconsin BoonDoggler dave rose JP Sullivan Kip S and 5 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213167

OK, I'll try to answer your question, though difficult it may be. … do we think that a company has a right to shield a known criminal from the law? No, we don't think that. We think that law trumps circumstance. You're alone and hungry. A smaller person walks by eating a sandwich. Do you take the sandwich because the person is smaller than you? Of course not. That would be morally wrong as well as against the law. But, suppose you are a cop and you are in pursuit of a criminal. Would you then be justified to take the sandwich, because it might help your stamina and thereby catch the criminal? No. Police are supposed to obey the law as well. Catching the criminal is not the highest order of priority. Following the law is. If we were living in the Russia, the police could do what ever they deem necessary, which seems to be what you are advocating our accepting in this case. As to the rest of your argument… If the person with the sandwich volunteers the sandwich, that's his or her choice. In Apple vs FBI, the FBI is breaking the law in compelling (with the full weight and authority of the courts) actions and burdens not being offered willingly. Plus! And this is the big one. There is a specific law that forbids that.

To: sandeep who wrote (188941)	3/19/2016 2:19:29 AM
From: Doren	5 Recommendations Recommended By Bill from Wisconsin JP Sullivan MGV Stock Puppy unclewest Respond to of 213167

> a known criminal from the law You mean like Ai Weiwei who is a known Apple user... and a Criminal in Chine because he speaks the truth? en.wikipedia.org You contend that we should help the Chinese monitor Apple customers? And the Saudis, and the Egyptians, and the... and the ad infinitum... every law enforcement agency in the world would claim it has the right to make Apple break into any Apple phone they were interested in. Can you imagine the complexity of the burden this would put on all tech companies? from Apple to Cisco to Google to IBM... personal security systems in homes? all of these businesses would be seriously disrupted. Consumers would probably resort to 3rd party encryption, Linux, the dark net. What a mess it would be.

To: sandeep who wrote (188941)	3/19/2016 2:49:42 AM
From: Pete_Y_48	8 Recommendations Recommended By aaplAnnie Bill from Wisconsin dave rose Doren JP Sullivan and 3 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213167

do we think that a company has a right to shield a known criminal from the law? Apple isn't shielding anyone from the law. They (Apple) don't have access (today) to any more information from the iPhone than the FBI already has. And in this case, the criminal is dead, so the law is moot. … we can't argue about the the inevitability of helping law enforcement! We are not living in the ussr! Do you realize how ironic those two statements are? What you are describing is exactly what is happening in the Soviet Socialist Republic. There is no inevitability here. There are US laws that prevent exactly what the FBI has requested. Wake up and support the right thing!! We are. We don't want the Government to do anything that it desires. We have rights established by the laws of the US and we don't want those rights ignored and trampled on. The FBI is trying very hard, in this case, to broaden their powers, nothing more. People who support Apple's refusal include the CIA, NSA, Senators who originally opposed Apple's position, but once read in, changed their minds, the US Military, almost all of the Tech industry, and even some of the parents of the victims in the shooting. That's an incredibly compelling assortment of supporters. Ask yourself, do you want your privacy to disappear? Do you want your identity stolen multiple times a year? And this is for the "possibility" of finding something on a person's work phone, left in a vehicle not used during the massacre, owned by the county, when the perpetrator had personal phones that he destroyed before the shooting? Which phones do you thing the shooter used for any planning? He also knew that the county was getting backups of that work phone and that anything on that phone was property of the county. This phone is a dead end. Hopefully the FBI case is also.

To: sandeep who wrote (188941)	3/19/2016 5:28:07 AM
From: Heywood40	4 Recommendations Recommended By aaplAnnie HerbVic JP Sullivan Kip S Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213167

Because we are not living in the USSR, China, Iran, or any other country with an oppressive, corrupt, totalitarian government, we actually can argue about the inevitability of "helping" law enforcement. In fact, as right-thinking, intelligent humans, we are obligated participate in that discussion. Fortunately for all of us, we have one of the brightest, most well-informed and most highly qualified individuals available doing all of the heavy lifting, not only for us here in the US, but for everyone in all those other countries as well. Tim Cook is the right man in the right place at the right time, strongly and effectively defending security and privacy for every human being on earth. This is one of the biggest issues we'll see in technology for many years, and we are all fortunate to be able to watch it play out in real time. The long-term negative repercussions would be beyond comprehension if Apple knuckled under to those who are trying to take our privacy and security away. It's hard for me to understand how the truth of this could escape you, or any other intelligent being.

To: sandeep who wrote (188941)	3/19/2016 8:24:44 AM
From: Bill from Wisconsin	3 Recommendations Recommended By JP Sullivan Moonray Stock Puppy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213167

I am a tech company shill as much as any of them - but really, do we think that a company has a right to shield a known criminal from the law? We can argue about what the law is - but we can't argue about the the inevitability of helping law enforcement! We are not living in the ussr! Wake up and support the right thing! Then it's time for our legislators to codify what the right ting is. Should Apple open phones in drug cases? Divorce cases? What happens when they are presented with a court order from a valid Chinese or Russian court to open up the phone of a "known criminal" (dissident) in that country. Apple operates in those countries under those rules as well. Those governments definition of "criminal" may be different than in this country. You are asking Apple to be the arbiter of where to draw the line. I'm not comfortable with that. Apple should not be in the investigative business. And if you can't debate this issue civilly, then I'm done with you. this isn't Yahoo