I like guns...

I even sleep with them, I have a nice little ohai holster for my .45, not that it's in it...  Currently it's just sitting next to my pillow because I was too lazy to roll over and put it back.  Still, our inability to hide firearms transactions from Uncle Fuck Me In The Ass isn't particularly pertinent to whether they have the authority to dictate to a company that it spend resources to further their case at the cost of it's own product value.

It's true that most -if not all- electronic devices aren't save, but alot of time & effort is needed to get specific systems open. Once quantum-based computer become real, the time for some of these hacking practices will be reduced to almost negligible time. You sure as hell can count the NSA in as topspot buyer!!

Frankly, all terrorists know this - and those which try to be conspirative about their whereabouts & contacts won't use ANY electronic devices at all. Or, use them to lay down false tracks/evidence.

Ofc there are always these which are careless & display a "after me the deluge"-type of thinking and don't give much about informational security or their buddies overseas, since they know they'll die.

Judging from the info given on this particular case, these alledged "terrorists" were not real terrorists at all, just pissed-off careless aggressives that turned massmurderers over a quarrel. Terrorism has become such a blatant politicised slang that is basically applied to anyone you wish to create a prejudgment in the media so noone comes complaining if individual rights are violated.

So just make that violation legal, and get it over with. You know that it will come anyway, sooner or later. If the can do it, if it is beneficial to their cause... some asian city-states already live in a near "glass case" society and their ability to do away with criminals & their general crimerate speaks for itself. And isn't there such a city in the US also (I remember I saw a documentairy on it, can't remember its name....) I'm all for making society more secure esp. if it prevents when innocents become victims at the hands of people that should've been locked up long before.

But don't be naive & think that this will somehow prevent terrorism from happening. The surveillance state is basically effective in dealing with low-profile criminals, mugging political opposition & free thinkers. Real criminals will always find a way to cover successfully cover their tracks.

<sarcasm>The folks who brought us the School of the Americas, torture, and ingenious re-definitions like 'enhanced interrogation,' deliberately 'destabilized' freely elected governments in Chile, central America, pre-shaw Iran, etc. merely to implement 'regime change' against the elected will of the people.  NSA (and friends) would never use this back door more than the one time they promise.  I trust the NSA - they have my personal / individual interests (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness )at heart.  If you have nothing to hide - then you should support the NSA.  Our secret / covert / semi-secret alphabet soups have such a long history of respecting the voting rights of third world countries, of enforcing the Geneva convention (terrorists are defined as enemy combatants to block any civilian court shenanigans - so Geneva applies instead), etc.  Yes, occasionally they make a mistake, but its for us! </sarcasm>

Isn't the use of our powerful minds to massage words / definitions / language wonderful? Consider the words of the profit prophet:

The world is not black and white. To consider Apple the "good' vs. the NSA and other agencies is to have blinders on.

Apple is not altruistic, nor some white knight variant. It exist solely to benefit it';s shareholders, and would crush you under it's heel if you stood in it's way, as would any diligent organization who's sole objective is profit.

Despite the popular opinion on this board, corporations are not the savior of mankind, truth, justice and the American way. A corporation's priority is not for the benefit or well being of the citizens, just because their business interest and the public interest happen to align this time.

When you trust the business model to do the right thing for the public, you end up with lead in the drinking water.

I really doubt there's anyone on the planet who is at all aware of the goings on and would thus be weighing in on such a relatively obscure subject as this, that thinks Apple is altruistic.  Fortunately, their motive, and even their character on the whole, is irrelevant to the validity of the suit.  The feds have, in essence, asked for a court order requiring a company to do work for them, without reimbursement, that will damage the value of work they've already done.  What I find as scary as them pulling it off is the complete lack of any coverage pointing to this factor.

Was laughting about the recent interview of McAfee on this topic

Don't generalize my position.

In this matter (the OP), Apple's position is entirely correct.

Well said.

It's not that A or B are evil, but their actions either are, or aren't, independent of their TRUE motivations.

Plus, nobody and nothing in this world is 100% good or 100% evil. But if you look at the bigger picture, at all their recent actions and their consequences (or potential consequences) for EVERYBODY, you can pretty much have a good idea on where they stand on the good/evil scale.

Hmmm...a certain *cuniculus* comes to mind...  ...as 'good', of course. 

DrJBHL

reply 176

Hmmm...a certain *cuniculus* comes to mind...  ...as 'good', of course. 

AHAHAH! Nah, we're all sinners. Which is as it should be because that is the condition of being human, i.e.; creatures capable of duality (i.e.; being both good and evil at the same time, although in different degrees) instead of absolutes. It is this capability that allows us to freely decide which side we want to be at, or rather, which side we want/allow to be stronger in us.

At different times...unless you feel a specific action (or inaction) can be good and evil simultaneously...

Being both good and evil at the same time sounds like theoretical physics.

Ouch. This one will take things waaaaay off-topic, but...

I think that, first, it depends on the intention.

Second, yes, there are actions (perhaps all actions?) that have both a good and an evil component, especially in an non-perfect world such as this where every resource is limited (so you cannot eat your cake and keep it too).

For instance, based on that famous trolley ethical problem that doesn't really have a 'right' answer: a train is coming full speed to a rail intersection. There are five people working in one of the tracks, and a child playing on the other. You can save one or the other by pulling a lever, but not both at the same time. What do you do? Do nothing and let fate take its course? Save five people and 'kill' one child? 'Kill' five people that have families and children of their own to save one child?

In the end, you have to try to chose the greater good. Or what you feel is the greater good. There is no 'right' answer, only a 'better' answer at most, and that in itself is limited by how little we really know about the 'full picture'.

But we are not required to do the impossible, just the best we can given our abilities. In the problem above, I personally think inaction is the absolute WORST choice.