Apple to Police: Take your warrant and shove it.....

[wjdobie]

This is a win-win, we don't get our data accessed, and Apple doesn't have to hire the people to find it 

[patrickjp93]

Not trying to butt in here, but goddamn you should hear yourself.

 

In the UK, it is absolutely innocent until proven guilty. You know why Barclays was a complicated situation? Because it is a corporation with multiple people in control of multiple things. It's not clear cut. In the US, they consider corporations to be individuals, which has the knock on effect of providing a cover for corrupt businessmen in the form of 'This Company is at fault' rather than 'These individuals are at fault'. Here, while our law system leaves much to be desired, we at least have proper organic laws rather than a set constitution that has to be interpreted and amended.

 

You can't provide a 'lack of evidence' to the court to prove innocence.

Oh yes you can. You can claim and show you were in xyz location doing 123 and as long as you can prove it (your phone's GPS is a good starting point), then you're fine. There is an answer for everything, regardless of how convoluted the question is.

[ZeroBreaker]

Oh yes you can. You can claim and show you were in xyz location doing 123 and as long as you can prove it (your phone's GPS is a good starting point), then you're fine. There is an answer for everything, regardless of how convoluted the question is.

 

Dude, once again, you should hear yourself. The statement I made was 'You can't provide a 'lack of evidence' to the court to prove innocence.'

 

You are saying that you can provide evidence to show you were not committing the crime, but that is irrelevant - in the case of a lack of evidence, a 'guilty until proven innocent' standpoint would suggest the defendant is guilty. That is utterly retarded. You can't tell me that is sensible or makes sense in any way, shape or form.

 

As a side note, a very easily spoofed co-ordinate is not a good starting point.

[LAwLz]

WRONG! Beyond a reasonable doubt, and then the accuser pays you legal fees plus defamation damages, and you walk away happy.

 

You have your history as a law abiding citizen, you have your relationship with the neighbors, and your local reputation speaking on your moral character against the accuser's claim of motive.

 

You have the means if you have a knife, but forensics will say whether or not a knife in your possession was involved, and anyone with a knife had the means. You could also prove you weren't covered in blood by surrendering your dirty laundry and submitting to a hand/arm swabbing, paid for by the accuser in ESCROW or another legal account holding system.

 

You have an odd idea of how difficult it is to prove innocence, but the reality is it's pretty simple. If you didn't do it, there won't be much if any evidence, and you still can discredit motive and presence claims.

Are you sure you know anything about informal logic? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What you are describing is innocent until proven guilty. As long as they don't have any evidence against you, you are innocent. That is exactly what you are describing.

 

The prosecutor might say I threw the knife away, rendering all the "he has no knife that matches the crime" argument completely invalid (assuming we are operating on an "guilty until proven innocent" basis). The same goes for dirty laundry. Maybe you burnt the clothes up? What do you mean by "discredit motive"? If we are operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" logic the prosecutor don't even have to present any motif. He or she does not have to make a single argument as to why you might be the guilty one, since you are already deemed guilty.

 

 

Oh yes you can. You can claim and show you were in xyz location doing 123 and as long as you can prove it (your phone's GPS is a good starting point), then you're fine. There is an answer for everything, regardless of how convoluted the question is.

Maybe I left the phone at home? I mean, I don't have the GPS on at all times and even if I did, it would just show I was within 100 meters of the crime scene. Maybe I left the phone at home while I went and killed them?

And remember, according to you (which I have proven you were wrong about), the one being convicted is the one who has to prove that he or she is innocent. All the procecutor has to do is find a single hole in any explanation. When you run out of proof that you weren't there when it happened, you are busted and get sent to jail.

 

This is why all civilized countries, including the UK, operates on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty". Because it is completely idiotic to go "well we don't have any evidence, so let's throw him in jail".

[Trik'Stari]

Government needs to GTFO, end of story. They seem to be more concerned with controlling public opinion any way they can, and controlling flow of information (net neutrality coupled with the NSA's illegal spying bullshit etc.) than they do with going after actual bad guys.

[mcmad358]

When i saw the title...

[patrickjp93]

Dude, once again, you should hear yourself. The statement I made was 'You can't provide a 'lack of evidence' to the court to prove innocence.'

 

You are saying that you can provide evidence to show you were not committing the crime, but that is irrelevant - in the case of a lack of evidence, a 'guilty until proven innocent' standpoint would suggest the defendant is guilty. That is utterly retarded. You can't tell me that is sensible or makes sense in any way, shape or form.

 

As a side note, a very easily spoofed co-ordinate is not a good starting point.

It's not a bad starting place at all. It can establish a timeline quite well if you get the tracking data for a whole day. 

 

And yes, that makes sense. If a company isn't guilty of fraud money laundering, let's see the books, all of them.

 

Police's hands are tied enough as it is. Detective work can only go so far, and privacy only benefits criminals. Civilizations went on for tens of thousands of years without it, so why exactly can't we? To me, it's not really a right. It's just a courtesy.

[patrickjp93]

Government needs to GTFO, end of story. They seem to be more concerned with controlling public opinion any way they can, and controlling flow of information (net neutrality coupled with the NSA's illegal spying bullshit etc.) than they do with going after actual bad guys.

Can't go after the bad guys if you can't sniff the internet. Pretty cut and dry situation.

[LAwLz]

privacy only benefits criminals.

Well that's it. I am either arguing with a troll or someone who doesn't feel like using logic today.

 

"You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into"

 

I am out.

[Trik'Stari]

Can't go after the bad guys if you can't sniff the internet. Pretty cut and dry situation.

privacy only benefits criminals.

Have you not realized that the people running the world, ARE CRIMINALS. We have no privacy anymore, they do. Explain.

[patrickjp93]

Well that's it. I am either arguing with a troll or someone who doesn't feel like using logic today.

"You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into"

I am out.

It was the opinion of Supreme Court justice Robert Posner as well. Feel free to read his arguments on the matter.

[patrickjp93]

Have you not realized that the people running the world, ARE CRIMINALS. We have no privacy anymore, they do. Explain.

We elected these criminals or put them in charge as unified citizen bodies. It's our own damn fault if it doesn't work out.

[Trik'Stari]

We elected these criminals or put them in charge as unified citizen bodies. It's our own damn fault if it doesn't work out.

LOL if you really believe that, you are blind. Electoral college + paid voting fraud is rampant. Everywhere we look we see thousands of errors on voting rolls, but the media doesn't cover it, and the government doesn't give a shit and blocks voter verification efforts when it can.

[pit5000]

there's a grey area where bribing politicians is perfectly legal but when somebody else does it, it's a crime.

 

 

interesting how a topic about privacy in software turns into this...

[ZeroBreaker]

It's not a bad starting place at all. It can establish a timeline quite well if you get the tracking data for a whole day. 

 

And yes, that makes sense. If a company isn't guilty of fraud money laundering, let's see the books, all of them.

 

Police's hands are tied enough as it is. Detective work can only go so far, and privacy only benefits criminals. Civilizations went on for tens of thousands of years without it, so why exactly can't we? To me, it's not really a right. It's just a courtesy.

 

You ignored the 'easily spoofed' bit of my comment. The only way to reliably obtain this data is to have a tracking device on every person in the country.

 

And let me explain something to you. A private life is a Human Right. There is a reason someone like you isn't allowed to go near universal shit like human rights, and that's cos your batshit crazy.

 

1984 was clearly an erotic fiction for you.

[patrickjp93]

You ignored the 'easily spoofed' bit of my comment. The only way to reliably obtain this data is to have a tracking device on every person in the country.

And let me explain something to you. A private life is a Human Right. There is a reason someone like you isn't allowed to go near universal shit like human rights, and that's cos your batshit crazy.

1984 was clearly an erotic fiction for you.

Privacy is a right? You learn a few things growing up. Everything, without exception, is a claim or privilege. You only have privacy because society has agreed upon it. You have your life only because society has not seemed you a threat to its own survival.

I'm not crazy, but I am scary. You have the right to try defending yourself from an attacker, but you only have the privilege because you either trained or someone made a weapon. There's no free lunch and there are no rights, only privileges you may seize or deny yourself.

Why else do we have exceptions in every law? Strictly speaking, criminals cannot constitutionally be denied the ability to purchase a gun. Breaking the law does not nullify citizenship, and yet society enforces a loss of that privilege. You have no rights without power or cooperation. We are, afterall, predatory animals at the end of the day.

[ZeroBreaker]

Privacy is a right? You learn a few things growing up. Everything, without exception, is a claim or privilege. You only have privacy because society has agreed upon it. You have your life only because society has not seemed you a threat to its own survival.

I'm not crazy, but I am scary. You have the right to try defending yourself from an attacker, but you only have the privilege because you either trained or someone made a weapon. There's no free lunch and there are no rights, only privileges you may seize or deny yourself.

Why else do we have exceptions in every law? Strictly speaking, criminals cannot constitutionally be denied the ability to purchase a gun. Breaking the law does not nullify citizenship, and yet society enforces a loss of that privilege. You have no rights without power or cooperation. We are, afterall, predatory animals at the end of the day.

 

 

OK Dude, it seems you think that society is something given to us by the heavens, or a lucky thing we heartless predators stumbled upon.

 

Because this is a tech forum, ill give you something from Steve Jobs, the father of the modern PC. Paraphrasing:

 

'I saw some graphics from a national science magazine, and they were measuring how much energy animals use to get around. We didn't do so well. We were quite far down the list. But some genius over there had the crazy idea of measuring man with a bicycle, and we blew everything out of the water. I firmly believe man is a tool-maker, we have this ability to enhance our abilities with our intellect'.

 

We have emotions. Love, Hate, whatever. In the end, these are ALL selfish - we love because it makes it easier to survive. We hate in anticipation for attack. For everything we do naturally, there is always some selfishness to it, some ulterior motive that evolution has trained us to aim for. This is our individual behaviour.

 

Society was not achieved by individuals. Society was achieved as a species. We individually came up with our own versions of society all around the world, with common themes being protection and civilization. Even native african tribes can be called small societies, they mirror our current larger ones in many ways.

 

Society is a tool to enhance our qualities of lives. Evolution, a basic biological truth, is geared towards survival of a species. Not individuals. It's part of our very core scientific ideas of life. Society enhances our survivability as a species. Society is our collective selves. Society declared the universal human rights to be true and fitting. Who the fuck are you, puny mortal human, to argue with the collective will of the whole fucking human species from the dawn to dusk of our existences?

 

Human rights can be ignored. But they are what we collectively decide. Maybe, if our species changes or our environment changes, we will change them, but as of now they are the closest thing we have to universal law, and that means we fucking punish whoever breaks it. Sanctions, Strikes, whatever the fuck we do, WE must to something because WE decided they were worth fighting for. Not a fucking stupid constition, not the flawed freedom america is so enamored with, but our rights as humans on fucking planet earth that we owe each other and ourselves.

[patrickjp93]

OK Dude, it seems you think that society is something given to us by the heavens, or a lucky thing we heartless predators stumbled upon.

Because this is a tech forum, ill give you something from Steve Jobs, the father of the modern PC. Paraphrasing:

'I saw some graphics from a national science magazine, and they were measuring how much energy animals use to get around. We didn't do so well. We were quite far down the list. But some genius over there had the crazy idea of measuring man with a bicycle, and we blew everything out of the water. I firmly believe man is a tool-maker, we have this ability to enhance our abilities with our intellect'.

We have emotions. Love, Hate, whatever. In the end, these are ALL selfish - we love because it makes it easier to survive. We hate in anticipation for attack. For everything we do naturally, there is always some selfishness to it, some ulterior motive that evolution has trained us to aim for. This is our individual behaviour.

Society was not achieved by individuals. Society was achieved as a species. We individually came up with our own versions of society all around the world, with common themes being protection and civilization. Even native african tribes can be called small societies, they mirror our current larger ones in many ways.

Society is a tool to enhance our qualities of lives. Evolution, a basic biological truth, is geared towards survival of a species. Not individuals. It's part of our very core scientific ideas of life. Society enhances our survivability as a species. Society is our collective selves. Society declared the universal human rights to be true and fitting. Who the fuck are you, puny mortal human, to argue with the collective will of the whole fucking human species from the dawn to dusk of our existences?

Human rights can be ignored. But they are what we collectively decide. Maybe, if our species changes or our environment changes, we will change them, but as of now they are the closest thing we have to universal law, and that means we fucking punish whoever breaks it. Sanctions, Strikes, whatever the fuck we do, WE must to something because WE decided they were worth fighting for. Not a fucking stupid constition, not the flawed freedom america is so enamored with, but our rights as humans on fucking planet earth that we owe each other and ourselves.

I hope you realize you just fully affirmed what I said and believe.

[ZeroBreaker]

I hope you realize you just fully affirmed what I said and believe.

 

I have no words left to even waste on you, hope you get treated someday.

[fryman]

LOL @ everyone here that thinks apple actually cares about your privacy. Guarantee this is just a marketing ploy

[LAwLz]

LOL @ everyone here that thinks apple actually cares about your privacy. Guarantee this is just a marketing ploy

Something can be purely for marketing and still benefit consumers.

This might very well be an example of this.

[RedRound2]

LOL @ everyone here that thinks apple actually cares about your privacy. Guarantee this is just a marketing ploy

 

No company as large as Apple will ever tell lies, especially about privacy. Any idiot will know that its just a matter of time before everything spills out

[Giddyguy]

Asserting that you won't answer questions because of fear of self incrimination puts a huge target on your back and makes you look guilty.

Well I'm still innocent until proven guilty and to prove I'm guilty they need a search warrant because using the protection of my rights is not probable cause.

 

Or, you could just not break the law... The only reason to fear the law and its enforcers is if you're a criminal and/or your community doesn't hold said law enforcers accountable.

Well of course I don't intentionally break the law nor fear it and its enforcers but I still wouldn't want to be searched, just as much as you wouldn't like it if I came over and looked through your computer filesystem.

 

Sorry for bringing up this old thread!

[chicksoup]

Why? you shouldn't really have anything to hide from the police anyways but good for them

this was the most ignorant and naive thing I've heard today

 

I don't think it's okay to try to hide illegal activities, but it would be terrible for the police to be able to access all of your data at the press of a button