Trump, The Worm In The Apple
Feb 20, 2016 2016 Election, Commentary
The terrorists who murdered people in San Bernardino before they were shot to death by law enforcement left behind an Apple iPhone and the FBI can’t crack into it. It seems the encryption in place will not allow the FBI tech folks access to the phone. The FBI wants Apple to access the device.
Apple claims it cannot do so unless it creates some kind of back door access that would affect all other iPhones. It seems Apple really did a bang up job of securing their phones after a lot of public outcry about privacy and the assistance given by the government to many tech companies.
[note]Apple made a point when it launched its new security to tell us they could not access an individual’s phone. At that time government protested and is evidently using this phone to make its case.[/note]
The issue here is a big picture issue. Apple says it can’t access the phone without building a means that would allow access to all phones. This, of course, is what the FBI (read government) wants. The government does not like the idea that it can’t access your stuff. I know there will be promises that this is just one phone and they would never use the technology to access other phones but they lie. We have seen far too many instances of surveillance overreach by the government. Stingray is one little thing they have developed and overused even allowing local police to use it provided they keep it secret.
Government will always abuse any tool or power it gets. They always justify it (or should I say rationalize it) by saying they are trying to keep us safe or that it is for the greater good but the reality is they want power and control and the San Bernardino terrorist attack provided the catalyst for the FBI to gain access.
Look, there might be important things on the phone that would help round up other terrorists but that alone is not a reason to develop something that would allow access to millions of phones that belong to people who have done nothing wrong. If accessing this phone at the expensive of others is deemed acceptable then what will stop them when the argument is eavesdropping on all of us is OK because they might find a few bad guys while doing it?
Donald Trump threw his hat into the fray over the phone by declaring Apple should do what the FBI wants and people should boycott Apple until they acquiesce. When asked by commentators at Fox about how the back door could be used to access even his phone the Donald said if it meant more security he was OK with it. Security was more important than liberty, in the mind of the Donald.
Donald, a Founding Father of this nation had something to say about people like you:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Ben Franklin
The quote may well have dealt with security and taxes during the French-Indian War but the words are well adapted to our civil liberty. If you Donald are willing to give up your liberty (as you stated when you said it was Ok for the government to have access to your phone, and by extension all of ours) because it was for security then you really deserve neither.
The ends do not justify the means in this case and if Trump thinks they do then he might as well be quoting Rules for Radicals.
There are plenty of tech experts in this country and no doubt a number of them have the ability to hack into that particular phone. If the FBI wants to pay one such person (one has already offered to do it for free) then that is up to them.
To leave all of us vulnerable to unwanted and unconstitutional violations of our privacy because of one phone that belonged to a terrorist is not a tradeoff worth considering.
Maybe, just maybe, if you believe in liberty you should consider boycotting Trump instead of Apple…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
This Is What You Get With Tyranny
Apr 7, 2015 Political, Tyranny
The federal government has a closely held plan known as SOP 303 which allows it to disrupt cellular service in a geographic area. The plan was requested under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request but the government agrued and the court agreed that disclosing the plan would put people in danger.
I am not sure how knowing about the plan would put people in danger. It seems to me that a government disrupting cellular (actually any wireless signal) in an area would be much more dangerous.
[note]Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin[/note]
The government argued that it needs to be able to do this in case of emergency like if there is a bomb that will be detonated by a wireless device. The claim is that the government can disrupt the signals and keep people safe.
Before I move on to other parts of this let that stated purpose sink in. Then ask yourself when government ever knows about the bombs before they go off. The only times we see where government stops a bomber is when they stop people they hooked in and provided the bomb to. They had no idea about the Boston Marathon bomber until the bomb, you know, detonated.
The only way they can ensure that a bomb does not go off in a crowded or sensitive area is to shut off the wireless signals during the entire period people are there. Do not put it past government to do just that, for your safety and all.
The stated intent of the SOP is just a smoke screen. It is unlikely, absent a complete blanket when danger might be present, the government will know of a bomb and be able to shut the signals before it goes off. So the reality is in addition to shutting off all service when the government is worried about a threat, there must be another goal.
This entire issue started because of the transit authority in San Francisco disrupting service in order to disperse a protest. You got that? It was not to stop a bomb it was to stop a protest probably by keeping people from contacting others to join in and to keep them from communicating with those there.
What would stop the government from using this disruption whenever it wanted to achieve a goal that had nothing to do with a bomb. Suppose the government decided to impose martial law for one reason or another and people were intent on disobeying. Government could disrupt the communications of the people trying to organize resistance.
Suppose there was another attack on this nation or some other catastrophic event (or government committed atrocities) and the government did not want people communicating this with others?
Governments become tyrannical. Eventually all governments become too big, too bloated and too powerful and they all begin to impose their will on the people. Governments eventually put their collective boots on the throats of the people in order to control them.
Our government is no different. We have plenty of people in office who want to rule over us. It is why they tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke and use. It is why they indoctrinate our children with revisionist history that raises a generation of compliant robots. It is why government runs health care and wants to take firearms away from people.
It is all because government wants to control us and lord over us.
All governments eventually end up this way. One day you are free and the next day you are living in a nation where jack booted government agents are shooting you and your family in the back of the head.
And they will block the cell signals so no one else will know.
Until it is too late.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cellular disruption, government, liberty, lies, sop 303, tyranny
Mayor Daley Out Of Touch With The People
Jun 29, 2010 Political
Mayor Daley is not happy with the decision by the Supreme Court that says the Second Amendment applies to the states. He is an anti gun politician and he wants guns banned. He has no concern for the Constitution or for freedom. He only cares about power and how to get rich through Chicago corruption.
The people of Chicago see things a bit differently. They are happy with the decision. Some indicate that they have weapons to protect themselves even though the weapons are illegal (by virtue of the gun ban). People are willing to break the law to ensure their safety.
Daley cares not one bit and he vowed to enact a new law that will make it extremely difficult to own a gun. These tactics usually involve undue barriers that prevent people, particularly the poor, from getting weapons. The very same tactics that liberals used after slavery to terrorize the freemen.
Why should Daley care? He has armed guards to protect him.
At least the people get it. As one person puts it:
Another neighbor, 50-year-old Charlene Figgins, thinks Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is living in a different Chicago than she is and that he doesn’t understand the citizens’ need for protection.
She says it can take 30 minutes for police to respond to calls for help in her neighborhood. She says the mayor doesn’t have that problem. Chicago Tribune
Or as the bumper sticker says, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
9-1-1, government sponsored dial a prayer…
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: armed guards, chicago, daley, gun control, liberty, Second Amendment