TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:Just saw that "an outside party" will unlock the phone, so Apple is off the hook.

I guess it must not have been encrypted as well as some people thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/techn ... phone.html

I started a new thread as this one was getting too long and I wanted to give TomsTXCHL a fresh pallette with which to trash me personally:

See viewtopic.php?f=94&t=83351

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:The majority of us can disagree without being disagreeable.

Wow, talk about being disagreeable!?!?!

You side with the govt and BHO. That is why you will not own any Apple products. I get it.

Well let's see Mr. "I aced Logic" . On Wed Feb 17, 2016 @ 10:02 am YOU wrote:

If it is possible for Apple to cooperate with that investigation without revealing their encryption methods to gov't, then maybe they should cooperate.

And your point is?

I am sure that you will need you have the last word as well, so have at it.

WildBill wrote:Come on guys. This is politics and logic has no place.

That is quite logical IMHO.

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Did you really, intentionally mean to equate me with Barack Hussein Obama?

You think the govt should have access, he thinks the govt should have access.

Tell us how you are different?

Since you obviously failed Logic 101, let's use this as a teaching moment

Actually, I aced logic in college so I have apparently misunderstood your position, or you have failed to properly explain it.

Perhaps you will clarify, as the thrust of your subject is that you side with the Govt against Apple in this matter.

No thinking American will do this!

Really? And yet you would propose such an apparently absolute belief? If you believe that the government is either all good or all bad, you probably feel good because you can cease to think. I assume that this is a comfort for you, as you can now feel assured and in control. If you have decided that a group of people are all bad, then all you have to do is stay away from them and once they are all gone life would be better, right? I would certainly agree that government has become far too large and far too over-reaching. But it still has its place - I hope Cruz is elected and he follows through on his pledge to eliminate some 500+ Federal agencies, including the IRS!

This thread drove quite a bit of spirited debate, some of it quite thoughtful, some of it perhaps not quite as, but a good debate in any event. The majority of us can disagree without being disagreeable.

So, without yet again , yes, my opinion is that the data in the dead terrorist's phone, that phone belonging to San Bernadino govt, should be turned over in case there is any information in there that could prevent the death of more innocent civilians.

YMMV. That does not put me in the same category as Barack Hussein Obama - according to LOGIC.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Well, Obama agrees with the OP, but not just for national security reasons. He thinks they need to be able to access our phone data any time they want for tax reasons: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-ca ... nance.html.

Did you really, intentionally mean to equate me with Barack Hussein Obama?

No, I did not. But I DID point out that once the back door is out of the bag that Apple has kept it in, it is rife for abuse under other "justifications". Laws of unintended consequences, and all that — which is exactly why I have remained so intractable on the issue. What you, however mistakenly from my view, intend for good, someone else (in this case Obama) will use for evil.

Understood. Only time will tell. I maintain my belief that Hillary will eventually be indicted as well.

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Did you really, intentionally mean to equate me with Barack Hussein Obama?

You think the govt should have access, he thinks the govt should have access.

Tell us how you are different?

Since you obviously failed Logic 101, let's use this as a teaching moment:


See if you can correctly select the Euler Diagram at the bottom of the illustration. You are welcome.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Well, Obama agrees with the OP, but not just for national security reasons. He thinks they need to be able to access our phone data any time they want for tax reasons: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-ca ... nance.html.

Did you really, intentionally mean to equate me with Barack Hussein Obama?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:
So we are at an impasse. You're a good guy Bitter, and I don't want to fight with you.
.

I think that we can disagree without being disagreeable

And yes, I have worked in industries where the government could be trusted and with individuals who exhibited the highest standards of decency, loyalty and patriotism. This may make me a dinosaur given our current POTUS and his DOJ appointees. My immediate family has provided similar service. None of those oaths that we gave have ever been violated.

As far as security, if you are serious, do you practice on-line banking? It is not secure. Do you have a Facebook or Twitter page? Then you are not serious about security. DO you use Uber? Then you are not serious about the 2nd ammendment.

And to add final insult to injury, and I am certain that there is no commercial motive behind it all, now Bill Gates agrees with me

Right2Carry: All I read was Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

Impressive argument. I concede to your superior logic.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If you build it gov't will use it. As far as the families of the victims, I sympathize, but that is the SAME argument that the families of the Sandyhook school shooting victims used to argue that so-called "assault weapons" should be banned.

It's not all Apple by the way. Microsoft and Google are backing Apple's play. No.....it's NOT about me. It's about the Constitution.

You are smarter than that. It is not the same argument as that used by gun grabbers - there is no 2nd Amendment for the right to bear phones. Don't wrap this in the Constitution, call it what it is, a legitimate difference in opinion. And pray if it goes your way no one else is murdered. Phones don't kill, terrorists whose opsec is protected by naivety kills.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:This is the Clinton Era "Clipper Chip" all over again.

Someone just sent me a link to the details of that story: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231146

The intent was, of course, that if and when the time came that the government had a "lawful" reason to intercept data it could use said escrowed key to get into whatever they wanted to.

But there were several problems. First was arguably the most-serious, which was that the chip's design was done under NSA auspice and considered a state secret. That's right -- it was actually classified at the SECRET level, which of course allegedly forbade anyone not holding said clearance from having any knowledge of how it worked. That was a fanciful load of crap then and it remains one now; Hillary has proved this hundreds of times with her little email server that had resident on it, unencrypted, SECRET (and above) emails.

Never mind that our government can't even manage to keep OPM records secure; there are a lot of people (like virtually everyone) that holds a clearance that has had their personal data, including fingerprints, stolen by the Chinese and, probably the Russians. Like an encryption key that is hard-wired into a chip once a fingerprint is stolen you can't change it and as such the compromise is permanent.

Then, a bit later, it was discovered that the NSA design was incompetent besides and the chip could be tricked. At that point the entire scheme collapsed around the government's ears.

Ironically, between this story and the fact that the San Berdoo terrorist's phone was in FBI possession when the employer reset the password, thereby essentially locking up the data on it, the ONE thing we have going for us in protecting our privacy is the massive incompetence and inefficiency of Leviathan. Such fecklessness can never be entrusted with protecting the private data of private citizens from intrusion by rogue gov't, or hackers. Heck, they can't even protect their employees' data. I'll be hanged if I want to trust them with protecting mine.

Yeah, yeah. All this rage against the government. Well I too believe that the government has gotten way too large and there are far too many unelected bureaucrats who deserve to be shown the door and find honest employment. And no, I do not trust Obama, not after all he has done to destroy the US and its fundamental values that we used to know and love and respect.

But hey, wait just a dang minute all of you! Apple is not on your side! You lust after your Apple products, but do you think Apple cares about your security? Do you think Google and Facebook have your privacy interests at heart? Apple can provide this hack, deliver the data and do so without jeopardizing privacy - buts its far more profitable to play it up in the news as if they had your best interests at heart. And stop quoting Ben Franklin, this is about privacy, not liberty.

Fact is, Apple is protecting Apple and Apple alone, and their profit motive. Sure, they are entitled to make as much profit as they can, but ethically! The problem is that in the blind pursuit of profit at the expense of morality they are possibly endangering more innocent lives. Where is your compassion for the families of the 14 murdered? Where is your outrage over this atrocity and the demand that we do whatever necessary to gain any and all intel that could prevent the next attack? Feeling smug because we chose to live in Texas where a brave Garland traffic officer took out two wanna be jihadi's with his service Glock? Well what if the next attack, for example, something akin to the Boston bombing could be stopped by the data on the phone? Pure speculation? Sure. But your speculation that the government is preparing some nefarious scheme to tap into your private conversations - as if they were all that interesting to begin with, NOT - is just as far beyond the pale.

The families of the innocents slaughtered want this data to be turned over to the FBI in the outside chance that it might save someone else's life. NOT an unreasonable request. So let's have some balance here and a little less slavish Apple worship and wholesale FBI bashing. We are supposed to be law abiding citizens of good standing! Its not all about you.

Right2Carry wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Cook is a traitor, Apple is a POS.

Feds slam Apple, saying it could easily help unlock iPhone and is 'not above the law'

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

You are violating forum rules with your post. You can't use the three capital letters at the end of your rant.

I for one side with Apple and it is why I also buy their products.

Assuming you are correct, despite an admitted bias, I have edited the post. Thank you.

Cook is a traitor.

Feds slam Apple, saying it could easily help unlock iPhone and is 'not above the law'

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Dave2 wrote:

Solaris wrote:

treadlightly wrote:Tonight on Fox (O'Reilly, I think), I heard a gentleman argue with passion against the private use of unbreakable cryptography. Plentiful reasons exist to crack terrorist communications wide open.

Ralph Peters is completely off the rails. "Tim Cook is telling terrorists, rapists and thugs, hey buy an iPhone, Apple has your back".

From what I have seen, 99% of the non-tech people think Apple has the key in a safe at Cupertino and is refusing to give it FBI.

Yeah, and it's amazing how tightly they cling to their erroneous belief.

Yeah, that's the problem solving spirit that made America great, NOT.


If you needed any more proof of exactly how wrong you are, the Dallas Morning News supports your position:
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... lp-fbi.ece