Recruiting forum off topic thread (merged)

[Vols4us]

Not one thing of what I am about to say reflects who I want or would prefer as President.

Trump has become a movement, gang. He has crossed over to a large segment of independents that could care less about labels as well as a growing number of Dems that do not care for Clinton. They are not "conservatives". Trump has the momentum and these are people that will actually show up at the voting booth. They know things are not right with the country and what he says on major issues makes sense to them. They strongly dislike Congress and the same old same old from the politicians. This will not be about polls. It will be about who shows up to actually vote. So motivation and momentum will rule. Only Trump can mess it up with a big blunder.

So IMO, hope for a VP candidate that can be a positive influence on him.

 

[BruinVol]

Their defense counsel has spoken to a witness or witnesses that confirm messages sent by the accuser or witnesses on social media, supposedly before and after that night, that cast doubt on the allegations.

The Court of Criminal Appeals now gets to decide a novel legal question, prior to trial, regarding what can be obtained (if not initially preserved) and how. The social media companies, of course, are resisting, and the prosecution is acting as their mouthpiece because it fits their agenda of seeking convictions rather than truth.

I would put Stephen Johnson, Tom Dillard and David Eldridge up against just about anyone I've had the privilege of knowing, when it comes to knowing their craft. They won't be outworked.

Am I completely crazy for saying this sounds similar to apple vs the FBI in the terrorist case with keeping the users privacy intact?


Sounds like similar privacy rights at stake to me

 

[Skullbone]

Trump could actually be in real trouble for Trump University. Goodness only knows what else lies in wait.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Am I completely crazy for saying this sounds similar to apple vs the FBI in the terrorist case with keeping the users privacy intact?


Sounds like similar privacy rights at stake to me

Completely different.

The Apple case is the FBI wanting backdoor access that would allow them to easily infiltrate data on any iphone in the world.

This is a case of lawyers wanting to be able to use messages sent through social media to be used in a case pretty much the same way you could use written correspondence like a letter or postcard in court.

An imperfect, but easy to understand, analogy would be that this case is like AJ's attorneys wanting access to letters of correspondence they have reason to believe could clear their client's name while the Apple case is like the FBI wanting MasterLock to give them a skeleton key that works on every lock they've ever made so that they can get into one criminal's storage locker.

 

[jave36]

Completely different.

The Apple case is the FBI wanting backdoor access that would allow them to easily infiltrate data on any iphone in the world.

This is a case of lawyers wanting to be able to use messages sent through social media to be used in a case pretty much the same way you could use written correspondence like a letter or postcard in court.

An imperfect, but easy to understand, analogy would be that this case is like AJ's attorneys wanting access to letters of correspondence they have reason to believe could clear their client's name while the Apple case is like the FBI wanting MasterLock to give them a skeleton key that works on every lock they've ever made so that they can get into one criminal's storage locker.

Finally someone who gets that whole apple nonsense.

 

[85SugarVol]

Completely different.

The Apple case is the FBI wanting backdoor access that would allow them to easily infiltrate data on any iphone in the world.

This is a case of lawyers wanting to be able to use messages sent through social media to be used in a case pretty much the same way you could use written correspondence like a letter or postcard in court.

An imperfect, but easy to understand, analogy would be that this case is like AJ's attorneys wanting access to letters of correspondence they have reason to believe could clear their client's name while the Apple case is like the FBI wanting MasterLock to give them a skeleton key that works on every lock they've ever made so that they can get into one criminal's storage locker.

So my question, regarding the Apple conundrum...

Could Apple not unlock the phone themselves, extract all the data, and hand over the data itself to the FBI? Without ever providing the FBI the key?

Granted, the "key" would exist. But, the FBI wouldn't have it.

 

[crazyguy]

So my question, regarding the Apple conundrum...

Could Apple not unlock the phone themselves, extract all the data, and hand over the data itself to the FBI? Without ever providing the FBI the key?

Granted, the "key" would exist. But, the FBI wouldn't have it.

They couldn't hold on to prototype iPhones, how in the world could they keep access to 50% of Americans cell phone data? Apple Pay, bank accounts, my snapchat....

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

So my question, regarding the Apple conundrum...

Could Apple not unlock the phone themselves, extract all the data, and hand over the data itself to the FBI? Without ever providing the FBI the key?

Granted, the "key" would exist. But, the FBI wouldn't have it.

The problem is that such a backdoor, or key, doesn't exist. The FBI is tryting to force Apple to create one (by citing a law written in 1789, no less). Apple doesn't want to create one because it could put their customers security at risk and also potentially hurt their own stock, company security, stability, etc. Once it's made, potentially it could fall into several hands. Apple is too scared to make the key for themselves, let alone hand it over to the FBI.

FTR, Apple has complied with, aided, and even given advice to the FBI on how to extract information from the phone all the way up to this point. They just think this is going too far.

Edit: The law the FBI is citing is from 1789, not 1890 as I said before.

 

[jave36]

The problem is that such a backdoor, or key, doesn't exist. The FBI is tryting to force Apple to create one (by citing a law written in 1789, no less). Apple doesn't want to create one because it could put their customers security at risk and also potentially hurt their own stock, company security, stability, etc. Once it's made, potentially it could fall into several hands. Apple is too scared to make the key for themselves, let alone hand it over to the FBI.

FTR, Apple has complied with, aided, and even given advice to the FBI on how to extract information from the phone all the way up to this point. They just think this is going too far.

Edit: The law the FBI is citing is from 1789, not 1890 as I said before.

Not to mention a large number of customers would leave them if they knew their info was so readily accessible by Apple employees. Right now they say they cannot hacking an iPhone themselves to get credit card numbers etc.... You can choose to believe that or not, but if they made the key, everyone would know for a fact they could access private info.

 

[Catbone]

After tomorrow night, you're either voting Hillary or Trump.

 

[TNV]

I got a cup too but I only use a cooler for the day. (Tailgating, boating or cookout ) so I'm in the same boat with justifying that kind of purchase. Hotels have ice machines, don't need the same ice for the whole football weekend.

I love mine. Especially for boating, hunting, camping, and tailgating. Ice in an igloo is gone by mid day and in a yeti you still have some leftover for a night cap when you get back to camp. I also have a Canyon cooler as well. They are just about as nice as a yeti and will keep ice as long but at 3/5 the cost. Well worth it if you use a cooler a lot. Once you get one of either you'll never buy another cheap cooler again.

 

[InVOLuntary]

So my question, regarding the Apple conundrum...

Could Apple not unlock the phone themselves, extract all the data, and hand over the data itself to the FBI? Without ever providing the FBI the key?

Granted, the "key" would exist. But, the FBI wouldn't have it.

Could Apple not break into the phone, determine it's password, and return the phone back to the FBI with said password?

 

[VolsDoc81TX]

Completely different.

The Apple case is the FBI wanting backdoor access that would allow them to easily infiltrate data on any iphone in the world.

This is a case of lawyers wanting to be able to use messages sent through social media to be used in a case pretty much the same way you could use written correspondence like a letter or postcard in court.

An imperfect, but easy to understand, analogy would be that this case is like AJ's attorneys wanting access to letters of correspondence they have reason to believe could clear their client's name while the Apple case is like the FBI wanting MasterLock to give them a skeleton key that works on every lock they've ever made so that they can get into one criminal's storage locker.

Except the one criminal was a member of ISIS who carried out a successful mission on American soil against unarmed civilians. I am totally fine with the FBI having that Master Key.

I do understand your analogy. Not really arguing.

 

[VolsDoc81TX]

So my question, regarding the Apple conundrum...

Could Apple not unlock the phone themselves, extract all the data, and hand over the data itself to the FBI? Without ever providing the FBI the key?

Granted, the "key" would exist. But, the FBI wouldn't have it.

Apple would then be violating the law as Apple isn't a law enforcement agency...

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Except the one criminal was a member of ISIS who carried out a successful mission on American soil against unarmed civilians. I am totally fine with the FBI having that Master Key.

I do understand your analogy. Not really arguing.

The problem is that legally the FBI doesn't have the authority to compel Apple to create a backdoor for them (they would have to create one since they haven't made one in the first place).

This is something the FBI has wanted for a LONG time and they've been pursuing for other small case crimes for a while. The only reason they're making a big deal about it right now is because they know they can use the aftermath of a tragedy and people's fear to gain public support in expanding their own authority and stripping away others' liberties.

Don't think for a second that the FBI wants this power to use just for one terrorist's phone.

 

[BruinVol]

The problem is that legally the FBI doesn't have the authority to compel Apple to create a backdoor for them (they would have to create one since they haven't made one in the first place).

This is something the FBI has wanted for a LONG time and they've been pursuing for other small case crimes for a while. The only reason they're making a big deal about it right now is because they know they can use the aftermath of a tragedy and people's fear to gain public support in expanding their own authority and stripping away others' liberties.

Don't think for a second that the FBI wants this power to use just for one terrorist's phone.

Courts ruled just yesterday in favor of Apple in a similar case with a drug dealer

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Could Apple not break into the phone, determine it's password, and return the phone back to the FBI with said password?

Yeah and that's basically what they've tried to help the FBI with, but the FBI is trying to coerce them into creating a backdoor for them to use on any/all iPhones.

That's why Apple is digging in and fighting against this. The FBI isn't just trying to get them to crack the passcode on one phone. They're trying to get access to all iPhones by telling Apple that they're legally obligated to create a completely new piece of technology which also happens to put the company and all of its customers' security at risk. All for a crime (well, crimes really...there's more than just this one case ongoing at the moment) that Apple was not complicit in in any way.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Courts ruled just yesterday in favor of Apple in a similar case with a drug dealer

The judge in that case gave a really well reasoned and easily understandable reasoning for his ruling. I highly suggest anyone who has time to check it out.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I love mine. Especially for boating, hunting, camping, and tailgating. Ice in an igloo is gone by mid day and in a yeti you still have some leftover for a night cap when you get back to camp. I also have a Canyon cooler as well. They are just about as nice as a yeti and will keep ice as long but at 3/5 the cost. Well worth it if you use a cooler a lot. Once you get one of either you'll never buy another cheap cooler again.

I don't really know much about any of these newfangled coolers. Do they have any kind of lifetime warranty or anything if they're so expensive?

If I drop a bunch of money on one can I pretty well expect it to last a few decades? If so, it doesn't seem like a waste of money if you use coolers a lot.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Yeah and that's basically what they've tried to help the FBI with, but the FBI is trying to coerce them into creating a backdoor for them to use on any/all iPhones.

That's why Apple is digging in and fighting against this. The FBI isn't just trying to get them to crack the passcode on one phone. They're trying to get access to all iPhones by telling Apple that they're legally obligated to create a completely new piece of technology which also happens to put the company and all of its customers' security at risk. All for a crime (well, crimes really...there's more than just this one case ongoing at the moment) that Apple was not complicit in in any way.

That's all they need in my opinion. I think a search warrant for each phone in question and Apple provides the password. Maybe that's opening Pandora's Box.

 

[BruinVol]

Yeah and that's basically what they've tried to help the FBI with, but the FBI is trying to coerce them into creating a backdoor for them to use on any/all iPhones.

That's why Apple is digging in and fighting against this. The FBI isn't just trying to get them to crack the passcode on one phone. They're trying to get access to all iPhones by telling Apple that they're legally obligated to create a completely new piece of technology which also happens to put the company and all of its customers' security at risk. All for a crime (well, crimes really...there's more than just this one case ongoing at the moment) that Apple was not complicit in in any way.

Darth


I have heard the talking heads say the only thing the FBI is asking for is the pass code for the 1 specific phone at that's it.

You sure that isn't the case in this 1 case?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Sam's Club has a Coleman version of the Yeti. It is about half the price. My brother has one and he's been very pleased with it.

 

[tomq_123]

Apple already has a backdoor into all thier OS's including iOS they just don't want people to know they do. The FBI overplayed their hand by trying to publicly get Apple to unlock the phone and give them the Master key citing this terrorist case as the specific need but in truth they really just want the Master key. If the FBI had asked privately for Apple to unlock this specific iPhone without asking for the Master key I would bet Apple would have privately unlocked it for them. Once again a case of Government overreach.

 

[WilliamDuVOL]

Darth


I have heard the talking heads say the only thing the FBI is asking for is the pass code for the 1 specific phone at that's it.

You sure that isn't the case in this 1 case?

Given that the government has shown they have the propensity to collect data on innocent American citizens already, I feel as though that IS all they need.

How many governments throughout history have ever been known to take power or a liberty from its citizens and willingly give it back?

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Darth


I have heard the talking heads say the only thing the FBI is asking for is the pass code for the 1 specific phone at that's it.

You sure that isn't the case in this 1 case?

100%. Whatever talking head you're listening to has no clue what they're talking about.

For one thing, Apple can't "give" out iPhone pas codes because each iPhone owner creates their own. Apple has no way of knowing any given person's passcode and can only help to try and figure out that passcode.

The FBI is saying that they "just want Apple to open one phone" because they know the majority of Americans (average joes AND those in the media) are tech illiterate and think that sounds perfectly reasonable. Really, they're trying to coerce Apple into creating a backdoor into the iPhone system for them to use "in this one case."

Assuming the FBI actually has the authority to do this(they don't), there are still a LOT of problems with that, so I'll just point out the main 3.

1. It sets a precedent that all tech companies can be required to create backdoor systems to bypass their own and their customers' security for cases in which the companies themselves are completely uninvolved outside of having sold a product to the criminal.

2. It sets a precedent for Apple and other tech companies to have to do the same in other countries where they sell their products. Do we really want the Chinese or other countries with notoriously corrupt governments to have access to a backdoor to every smart phone in the world?

3. Once created, these back doors will be very easily replicable by other companies, hackers, governments, etc.

Putting aside the legality of the FBI doing this (they can't force Apple to cooperate at all, really, any more than they can force me or you to pause our day jobs and help in their investigation) or whether or not they'd abuse this power (history says probably), it sets a lot poor precedents.